Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Restor Dent Endod : Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics

Search
Advanced Search
OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 27(4); 2002 > Article
Original Article MICROHARDNESS AND MICROLEAKAGE OF COMPOSITE RESIN CURED BY VISIBLE LIGHT WITH VARIOUS BAND OF WAVELENGTH
Soo-Man Park, Jae-Yong Lee, Seung-Ryul Han, Sang-Yoon Ha, Dong-Hoon Shin
J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2002;27(4):-410.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2002.27.4.403
Published online: January 14, 2002

Dept. of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Dankook University

Copyright © 2002 The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 93 Views
  • 0 Download
  • 1 Crossref
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Several ways of curing are being tried to improve material’s properties and reduce marginal gap. However, all are considering about the pattern of light intensity. It was noted from the preliminary study the change of light wavelength from filter changing may give an impact on material’s property and microleakage.
    The object of this study was to verify the effect of filters with various wavelength width on the microhardness and microleakage of composite resin; hybrid type of DenFil and submicron hybrid type of Esthet X. Composite resins were cured using 3 kinds of filter; narrow-banded(465-475 nm), mid-banded(430-470 nm), wide-banded(400-500 nm). After the estimation of microhardness, degree of dye penetration and the maximum gap from SEM evaluation were done between 4 groups that showed no difference in microhardness value of the lower surface.
    The results were as follows:

    1. Adequate microhardness could not be gained with a narrow-banded filter irrespective of curing time. At the upper surface, DenFil should be polymerized with middle or wide-banded filter for 20 seconds at least, while Esthet X be cured with middle or wide-banded filter for 30 seconds at least to get similar hardness value to control group.

    2. There was little dye penetration in enamel margin, but all dentin margins showed much more dye penetration irrespective of curing conditions. Although there was no statistical difference, groups cured with mid-banded filter for 40 seconds and with wide-width filter for 20 seconds showed relatively less dye penetration.

    3. It was revealed from the SEM examination that group cured with wide-banded filter had the smallest gap without statistical significance. Spearman’s rho test showed that the correlation between the results of dye penetration and SEM examination was very low.

    From these results, it could be concluded that curing with wide-width filter would be better than the other techniques, even though the curing technique using mid-width filter seems to have its own unique advantage.
  • Keywords: Microhardness; Microleakage; Wavelength width; Filter; Curing
Table 1.
Microhardness values of groups (kg/mm2)
Wavelength Curing time (sec.) Upper surface
 Lower surface
DenFil Esthet X DenFil Esthet X
Narrow 20 78.95 (2.09) 54.77 (2.81) 40.06 (3.39) 26.95 (4.96)
30 86.87 (1.22) 58.25 (5.01) 58.26 (2.49) 39.24 (4.20)
40 89.02 (4.36) 66.98 (5.73) 66.65 (4.54) 51.43 (5.38)
Middle 20 100.13 (4.78) 66.08 (5.64) 66.47 (3.53) 44.60 (3.17)
30 96.73 (7.48) 81.28 (5.44) 84.95 (7.71) 67.91 (5.63)
40 99.39 (5.68) 73.95 (2.03) 79.28 (4.87) 61.17 (2.70)
Wide 20 95.81 (7.18) 78.28 (3.82) 86.49 (7.14) 64.79 (5.76)
30 104.40 (4.58) 83.55 (8.42) 95.39 (3.86) 73.88 (7.16)
40 99.90 (6.83) 83.19 (9.71) 94.60 (4.72) 65.82 (9.48)
Table 2.
Statistical difference of the upper surface of DenFil
Wavelength (time) N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2 3 4
Narrow (20) 10 78.95
Narrow (30) 10 86.87 86.87
Narrow (40) 10 89.02 89.02
Wide (20) 10 95.81 95.81 95.81
Middle (40) 10 96.73 96.73
Middle (30) 10 99.39
Wide (30) 10 99.90
Middle (20) 10 100.13
Wide (40) 10 104.40
Significance 0.216 0.097 0.251 0.129
Table 3.
Statistical difference of the upper surface of Esthet X
Wavelength (time) N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2 3 4
Narrow (20) 10 54.77
Narrow (30) 10 58.25 58.25
Middle (20) 10 66.08 66.08
Narrow (40) 10 66.98 66.98
Middle (30) 10 73.95 73.95
Wide (20) 10 78.28
Middle (40) 10 81.28
Wide (30) 10 83.19
Wide (40) 10 83.55
Significance 0.987 0.219 0.360 0.119
Table 4.
Statistical difference of the lower surface of DenFil
Wavelength (time) N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2 3 4
Narrow (20) 10 40.06
Narrow (30) 10 58.26
Middle (20) 10 66.47
Narrow (40) 10 66.65
Middle (30) 10 79.28
Middle (40) 10 84.95
Wide (20) 10 86.49 86.49
Wide (30) 10 94.60
Wide (40) 10 95.39
Significance 1.000 0.093 0.247 0.056
Table 5.
Statistical difference of the lower surface of Esthet X
Wavelength (time) N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2 3 4 5 6
Narrow (20) 10 26.95
Narrow (30) 10 39.24
Middle (20) 10 44.60 44.60
Narrow (40) 10 51.43 51.43
Middle (30) 10 61.17 61.17
Wide (20) 10 64.79 64.79
Wide (30) 10 65.82 65.82
Middle (40) 10 67.91 67.91
Wide (40) 10 73.88
Significance 1.000 0.817 0.529 0.087 0.548 0.144
Table 6.
Degree of dye penetration in all groups
Wavelength (time) Margin N Mean (S.D.)
Wide (20) Occlusal 10 0.20 (0.42)
Gingival 10 2.00 (1.05)
Wide (30) Occlusal 10 0.10 (0.32)
Gingival 10 2.30 (0.67)
Middle (40) Occlusal 10 0.10 (0.32)
Gingival 10 1.90 (0.57)
Wide (40) Occlusal 10 0.10 (0.32)
Gingival 10 2.60 (0.52)
Table 7.
Ranks of dye penetration (Kruskal-Wallis test)
Wavelength (time) N Mean Rank
Wide (20) 10 18.90
Wide (30) 10 21.60
Middle (40) 10 15.30
Wide (40) 10 26.20
Table 8.
Statistics of K-W test
dye penetration
Chi-Square 5.523
df 3
Asymp. sig. .137
Table 9.
Maximum gap of all groups (μ m)
Wavelength (time) Margin N Mean (S.D.)
Wide (20) Gingival 10 13.61 (11.28)
Wide (30) Gingival 10 17.05 (12.21)
Middle (40) Gingival 10 22.93 (24.31)
Wide (40) Gingival 10 18.51 (19.66)
Table 10.
Homogeneous subset
Wavelength (time) N subset for alpha = .05
1
Wide (20) 10 13.61
Wide (30) 10 17.05
Wide (40) 10 18.51
Middle (40) 10 22.93
Sig. .711
Table 11.
Correlation between SEM and dye penetration
Dye SEM
Spearman’s rho Dye Correlation 1.000 .061
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) ) . .707
N 40 40
  • 1. Pradhan RD, Melikechi N, Eichmiller F. The effect of irradiation wavelength bandwidth and spot size on the scraping depth and temperature rise in composite exposed to an argon laser or a conventional quartz-tungsten-halogen source. Dent Mat 2002 May;18(3):221-226.ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Cook WD. Spectral distribution of dental photopoly-merizing sources. J Dent Res 1982;61(12):1436-1438.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 3. Davidson CL, de Gee AJ, Feilzer A. The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress. J Dent Res 1984;63(12):1396-1399.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 4. Davidson CL, de Gee AJ. Relaxation of polymerization contraction stresses by flow in dental composites. J Dent Res 1984;63:146-148.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 5. Tarle Z, Meniga A, Ristic M, Sutalo J, Pichler G, Davidson CL. The effect of the polymerization method on the quality of composite resin samples. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25(6):436-442.PubMed
  • 6. Lutz F, Kreejei I, Luescher B, Oldenburg TR. Improved proximal margin adaptation of Class II composite restorations by use of light-reflecting wedges. Quintessence Int 1986;17:659-670.PubMed
  • 7. Chan KC, Boyer DB. Curing light activated composite resin through dentin. J Pros Dent 1985;54:643-645.
  • 8. Mehl A, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH. Physical properties and gap formation of light-cured composites with and without‘soft-start polymerization’. J Dent Res 1997 May-Jul;25(3-4):321-330.ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Friedl KH, Schmalz G, Hiller KA, Markl A. Marginal adaption of Class V restorations with and without “soft-start polymerization”. Oper Dent 2000 Jan-Feb;25(1):26-32.PubMed
  • 10. Goracci G, Mori G, Casa de’Martinis L. Curing light intensity and marginal leakage of resin composite restorations. Quint Int 1996;27:355-362.
  • 11. Suh BI, Cripe CA, Yin R. Light intensity and exposure time effects on light cured composites. J Dent Res 1998;77:Special issue B:Abst, No. #73.
  • 12. Dennison JB, Yaman P, Seir R, Hamilton JC. Effect of variable light intensity on composite shrinkage. J Pros Dent 2000;84(5):499-505.ArticlePubMed
  • 13. Kim HC, Cho KM, Shin DH. Microhardness of esthetic restorative materials cured by 3 types of narrow-banded wavelength. J Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2001;26(2):127-133.
  • 14. Manhart J, Chen HY, Mehl A, Weber K, Hickel R. Marginal quality and microleakage of adhesive class V restorations. J Dent 2001;29:123-130.ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Sakaguchi RL, Sasik CT, Bunczak MA, Douglas WH. Strain gauge method for measuring polymerization contraction of composite restoratives. J Dent 1991 Oct;19(5):312-326.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Ruggeberg FA. Effect of light-tip distance on polymerization of resin composite. Int J Prostho 1993;6:364-370.
  • 17. Davidson CL, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and polymerization shrinkage stress in polymer-based restoratives. J Dent 1997 Nov;25(6):435-440.PubMed
  • 18. Rueggeberg FA, Caughman WF, Curtis JW Jr, Davis HC. Factors affecting cure at depths within light-activated resin composites. Am J Dent 1993;6(2):91-95.PubMed
  • 19. Bayne SC, Taylor DF. Dental materials. In: Sturdevant CM, Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Sturdevant Jr eds , editors. The art and sciences of operative dentistry. 1995. 3rd ed.. St. Louis: Mosby; 260.
  • 20. Park SM, Shin DH. Microhardness and microleakage of composite resin according to the change of curing light intensity. J Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2001;26(5):363-371.
  • 21. Ruggeberg FA. Factors affecting light transmission of single use, plastic light-curing tips. Oper Dent 1998 Jul;23(4):145-152.
  • 22. Goracci G, Mori G. Esthetic and functional reproduction of occlusal morphology with composite resins. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1999 Jul;20(7):643-648.PubMed
  • 23. Burgess JO, DeGoes M, Walker R, Ripps AH. An evaluation of four light-curing units comparing soft and hard curing. Pract Periodont Aesthet Dent 1999 Jan;11(1):125-132.
  • 24. Uno S, Asmussen E. Marginal adaptation of a restorative resin polymerized at reduced rate. Scand J of Dent Res 1991;99:440-444.ArticlePubMed
  • 25. Unterbrink GL, Muessner R. Influence of light intensity on two restorative systems. J Dent 1995 Jun;23(3):183-189.ArticlePubMed
  • 26. Manabe A, Debari K, Itoh K, Hisamitsu H, Wakumoto S. Effect of delayed light curing of a resin composite on marginal integrity in cylindrical dentine cavities. J Dent 1993 Dec;21(6):344-349.ArticlePubMed
  • 27. Friedl KH, Schmalz G, Hiller KA, M rkl A. Marginal adaptation of class V restorations with and without “softstart-polymerization”. Oper Dent 2000;25:26-32.PubMed
  • 28. Nomoto R. Effect of light wavelength on polymerization of light-cured resins. Dent Mater 1997 Jun;16(1):60-73.ArticlePubMed
  • 29. Blankenau EK. Wavelength and intensity of systems for visible light-curing composite resins: a comparison study. JADA 1983;106(4):471-474.PubMed
  • 30. Iwami Y, Yamamoto H, Ebisu S. A new electrical method for detecting marginal leakage of in vitro resin restorations. J Dent 2000;28:241-247.ArticlePubMed
  • 31. Santini A, Plasschaert AJM, Mitchell S. Effect of composite resin placement techniques on the microleakage of two self-etching dentin-bonding agents. Am J of Dent 2001;14(3):132-136.

Tables & Figures

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • The Effect of Two Different Light-Curing Units and Curing Times on Bulk-Fill Restorative Materials
      Gokcen Deniz Bayrak, Elif Yaman-Dosdogru, Senem Selvi-Kuvvetli
      Polymers.2022; 14(9): 1885.     CrossRef

    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite
      CITE
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      MICROHARDNESS AND MICROLEAKAGE OF COMPOSITE RESIN CURED BY VISIBLE LIGHT WITH VARIOUS BAND OF WAVELENGTH
      J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2002;27(4):403-410.   Published online January 14, 2002
      DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2002.27.4.403
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    MICROHARDNESS AND MICROLEAKAGE OF COMPOSITE RESIN CURED BY VISIBLE LIGHT WITH VARIOUS BAND OF WAVELENGTH
    MICROHARDNESS AND MICROLEAKAGE OF COMPOSITE RESIN CURED BY VISIBLE LIGHT WITH VARIOUS BAND OF WAVELENGTH
    Wavelength Curing time (sec.) Upper surface
    		 Lower surface
    DenFil Esthet X DenFil Esthet X
    Narrow 20 78.95 (2.09) 54.77 (2.81) 40.06 (3.39) 26.95 (4.96)
    30 86.87 (1.22) 58.25 (5.01) 58.26 (2.49) 39.24 (4.20)
    40 89.02 (4.36) 66.98 (5.73) 66.65 (4.54) 51.43 (5.38)
    Middle 20 100.13 (4.78) 66.08 (5.64) 66.47 (3.53) 44.60 (3.17)
    30 96.73 (7.48) 81.28 (5.44) 84.95 (7.71) 67.91 (5.63)
    40 99.39 (5.68) 73.95 (2.03) 79.28 (4.87) 61.17 (2.70)
    Wide 20 95.81 (7.18) 78.28 (3.82) 86.49 (7.14) 64.79 (5.76)
    30 104.40 (4.58) 83.55 (8.42) 95.39 (3.86) 73.88 (7.16)
    40 99.90 (6.83) 83.19 (9.71) 94.60 (4.72) 65.82 (9.48)
    Wavelength (time) N Subset for alpha = 0.05
    1 2 3 4
    Narrow (20) 10 78.95
    Narrow (30) 10 86.87 86.87
    Narrow (40) 10 89.02 89.02
    Wide (20) 10 95.81 95.81 95.81
    Middle (40) 10 96.73 96.73
    Middle (30) 10 99.39
    Wide (30) 10 99.90
    Middle (20) 10 100.13
    Wide (40) 10 104.40
    Significance 0.216 0.097 0.251 0.129
    Wavelength (time) N Subset for alpha = 0.05
    1 2 3 4
    Narrow (20) 10 54.77
    Narrow (30) 10 58.25 58.25
    Middle (20) 10 66.08 66.08
    Narrow (40) 10 66.98 66.98
    Middle (30) 10 73.95 73.95
    Wide (20) 10 78.28
    Middle (40) 10 81.28
    Wide (30) 10 83.19
    Wide (40) 10 83.55
    Significance 0.987 0.219 0.360 0.119
    Wavelength (time) N Subset for alpha = 0.05
    1 2 3 4
    Narrow (20) 10 40.06
    Narrow (30) 10 58.26
    Middle (20) 10 66.47
    Narrow (40) 10 66.65
    Middle (30) 10 79.28
    Middle (40) 10 84.95
    Wide (20) 10 86.49 86.49
    Wide (30) 10 94.60
    Wide (40) 10 95.39
    Significance 1.000 0.093 0.247 0.056
    Wavelength (time) N Subset for alpha = 0.05
    1 2 3 4 5 6
    Narrow (20) 10 26.95
    Narrow (30) 10 39.24
    Middle (20) 10 44.60 44.60
    Narrow (40) 10 51.43 51.43
    Middle (30) 10 61.17 61.17
    Wide (20) 10 64.79 64.79
    Wide (30) 10 65.82 65.82
    Middle (40) 10 67.91 67.91
    Wide (40) 10 73.88
    Significance 1.000 0.817 0.529 0.087 0.548 0.144
    Wavelength (time) Margin N Mean (S.D.)
    Wide (20) Occlusal 10 0.20 (0.42)
    Gingival 10 2.00 (1.05)
    Wide (30) Occlusal 10 0.10 (0.32)
    Gingival 10 2.30 (0.67)
    Middle (40) Occlusal 10 0.10 (0.32)
    Gingival 10 1.90 (0.57)
    Wide (40) Occlusal 10 0.10 (0.32)
    Gingival 10 2.60 (0.52)
    Wavelength (time) N Mean Rank
    Wide (20) 10 18.90
    Wide (30) 10 21.60
    Middle (40) 10 15.30
    Wide (40) 10 26.20
    dye penetration
    Chi-Square 5.523
    df 3
    Asymp. sig. .137
    Wavelength (time) Margin N Mean (S.D.)
    Wide (20) Gingival 10 13.61 (11.28)
    Wide (30) Gingival 10 17.05 (12.21)
    Middle (40) Gingival 10 22.93 (24.31)
    Wide (40) Gingival 10 18.51 (19.66)
    Wavelength (time) N subset for alpha = .05
    1
    Wide (20) 10 13.61
    Wide (30) 10 17.05
    Wide (40) 10 18.51
    Middle (40) 10 22.93
    Sig. .711
    Dye SEM
    Spearman’s rho Dye Correlation 1.000 .061
    Coefficient
    Sig. (2-tailed) ) . .707
    N 40 40
    Table 1. Microhardness values of groups (kg/mm2)

    Table 2. Statistical difference of the upper surface of DenFil

    Table 3. Statistical difference of the upper surface of Esthet X

    Table 4. Statistical difference of the lower surface of DenFil

    Table 5. Statistical difference of the lower surface of Esthet X

    Table 6. Degree of dye penetration in all groups

    Table 7. Ranks of dye penetration (Kruskal-Wallis test)

    Table 8. Statistics of K-W test

    Table 9. Maximum gap of all groups (μ m)

    Table 10. Homogeneous subset

    Table 11. Correlation between SEM and dye penetration

    Table 1.

    Table 2.

    Table 3.

    Table 4.

    Table 5.

    Table 6.

    Table 7.

    Table 8.

    Table 9.

    Table 10.

    Table 11.

    Restor Dent Endod : Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics
    © The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry.
    Close layer
    TOP