This study evaluated the effectiveness of the light emitting diode(LED) units for composite curing. To compare its effectiveness with conventional quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) light curing unit, the microhardness of 2mm composite, Z250, which had been light cured by the LEDs (Ultralume LED2, FreeLight, Developing product D1) or QTH (XL 3000) were compared on the upper and lower surface. One way ANOVA with Tukey and Paired t-test was used at 95% levels of confidence. In addition, the amount of linear polymerization shrinkage was compared between composites which were light cured by QTH or LEDs using a custom-made linometer in 10s and 60s of light curing, and the amount of linear polymerization shrinkage was compared by one way ANOVA with Tukey.

The amount of polymerization shrinkage at 10s was

XL3000 > Ultralume 2, 40, 60> FreeLight, D1 (P<0.05)

The amount of polymerization shrinkage at 60s was

XL3000 > Ultralume 2, 60> Ultralume 2,40> FreeLight, D1 (P<0.05)

The microhardness on the upper and lower surface was as follows;

It was concluded that the LEDs produced lower polymerization shrinkage in 10s and 60s compared with QTH unit. In addition, the microhardness of samples which had been cured with LEDs was lower on the lower surfaces than the upper surfaces whereas there was no difference in QTH cured samples.

The purpose of present study was to evaluate the polymerization shrinkage stress and amount of linear shrinkage of composites and compomers for posterior restoration.

For this purpose, linear polymerization shrinkage and polymerization stress were measured.

For linear polymerization shrinklage and polymerization stress measurement, custom made Linometer (R&B, Daejon, Korea) and Stress measuring machine was used (R&B, Daejon, Korea). Compositers and compomers were evaluated; Dyract AP (Dentsply Detrey, Gumbh. German) Z100 (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, USA) Surefil (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, USA) Pyramid(Bisco, Schaumburg, USA) Synergy Compact (Coltene, Altstatten, Switzerland), Heliomolar (Vivadent/Ivoclar, Liechtenstein), and Compoglass (Vivadent Ivoclar/Liechtenstein) were used. 15 measurements were made for each material. Linear polymerization shrinkage or polymerization stress for each material was compared with one way ANOVA with Tukey at 95% levels of confidence.

For linear shrinkage; Heliomolar, Surefil<Synergy Compact, Z100<Dyract AP<Pyramid, Compoglass F (p<0.05)

For Shrinkage stress; Heliomolar<Z100, Pyramid<Synergy Compact, Compoglass F<Dyract AP<Heliomolar HB, Surefil (p<0.05)