Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical long-term success of contemporary nano-filled resin composites in class I and II restorations cured by LED or halogen light

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The use of LED light-curing units (LED LCUs) for polymerising resin-based composite restorations has become widespread throughout dentistry. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of clinical longitudinal studies that evaluate the comparative efficacy of LED-based polymerisation in direct posterior composite restorations. The aim of the present study was to investigate the performance of class I and II resin composite restorations for two successful composite restorative materials cured with LED versus halogen LCUs.

Methods

One hundred restorations were placed using the nano-filled composites Grandio® or Filtek™ Supremé. The following test groups were established: LED-Grandio® n = 23 (LG), LED-Filtek™ Supremé n = 21 (LS). As controls were used: Halogen-Grandio® n = 28 (HG), Halogen-Filtek™ Supremé n = 28 (HS). All restorations were evaluated according to the clinical criteria of the CPM index (C-criteria) at baseline and after 6, 12 and 36 months.

Results

After 12 and 36 months, there were no significant differences between restorations polymerised with LED or halogen light. At the end of the study, 97% of the restorations showed sufficient results regardless of the employed LCU or composite. Globally, after 36 months, 56% of all restorations were assessed with code 0 (excellent) and 41% with code 1 (acceptable). In detail, excellent results (code 0) among the criteria surface quality; marginal integrity and marginal discoloration were assigned in 72, 70 and 69%.

Conclusions

For the current limitations in the clinical trial design, the results showed that LED-polymerisation is appropriate to ensure clinical success of direct posterior resin composite restorations in a range of 3 years.

Clinical significance

The choice of LCU has no significant influence on the clinical performance of posterior direct resin composite restorations within 3 years of wear.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguercio AD, Demarco FF (2006) A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent 34(7):427–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2005.09.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Frankenberger R, Reinelt C, Kramer N (2014) Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: 8-year results. Clin Oral Investig 18(1):125–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0957-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Palaniappan S, Elsen L, Lijnen I, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P (2010) Three-year randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance, quantitative and qualitative wear patterns of hybrid composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 14(4):441–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0313-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ (2012) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater: Off Publ Acad Dent Mater 28(1):87–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lazaridou D, Belli R, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U (2014) Are resin composites suitable replacements for amalgam? A study of two-body wear. Clin Oral Investig. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1373-4

  6. Lempel E, Toth A, Fabian T, Krajczar K, Szalma J (2015) Retrospective evaluation of posterior direct composite restorations: 10-year findings. Dent Mater: Off Publ Acad Dent Mater 31(2):115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Astvaldsdottir A, Dagerhamn J, Dijken JW, Naimi-Akbar A, Sandborgh-Englund G, Tranaeus S, Nilsson M (2015) Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults - a systematic review. J Dent. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.05.001

  8. Heintze SD, Rousson V (2012) Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations - a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 14(5):407–431. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a28390

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, Gaengler P, Lindberg A, Huysmans MC, van Dijken JW (2014) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 93(10):943–949. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514544217

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Jandt KD, Mills RW (2013) A brief history of LED photopolymerization. Dent Mater 29(6):605–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.02.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rueggeberg FA (2011) State-of-the-art: dental photocuring--a review. Dent Mater 27(1):39–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mills RW, Jandt KD, Ashworth SH (1999) Dental composite depth of cure with halogen and blue light emitting diode technology. Br Dent J 186(8):388–391

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jadhav S, Hegde V, Aher G, Fajandar N (2011) Influence of light curing units on failure of directcomposite restorations. J Conserv Dent 14(3):225–227. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972–0707.85793

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Mills RW, Uhl A, Blackwell GB, Jandt KD (2002) High power light emitting diode (LED) arrays versus halogen light polymerisation of oral biomaterials: Barcol hardness, compressive strength and radiometric properties. Biomaterials 23(14):2955–2963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Polydorou O, Manolakis A, Hellwig E, Hahn P (2008) Evaluation of the curing depth of two translucent composite materials using a halogen and two LED curing units. Clin Oral Investig 12(1):45–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0142-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rencz A, Hickel R, Ilie N (2012) Curing efficiency of modern LED units. Clin Oral Investig 16(1):173–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0498-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sigusch BW, Pflaum T, Volpel A, Schinkel M, Jandt KD (2009) The influence of various light curing units on the cytotoxicity of dental adhesives. Dent Mater 25(11):1446–1452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.06.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stahl F, Ashworth SH, Jandt KD, Mills RW (2000) Light-emitting diode (LED) polymerisation of dental composites: flexural properties and polymerisation potential. Biomaterials 21(13):1379–1385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Price R (2013) Guest Editorial: Symposium on light sources in dentistry. Dent Mater 29(2):137–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2012.11.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. El-Mowafy O, El-Badrawy W, Wasef M, Omar H, Kermanshahi S (2007) Efficacy of new LED light-curing units in hardening of Class II composite restorations. J Can Dent Assoc 73(3):253

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jandt KD, Mills RW, Blackwell GB, Ashworth SH (2000) Depth of cure and compressive strength of dental composites cured with blue light emitting diodes (LEDs). Dent Mater 16(1):41–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Malhotra N, Mala K (2010) Light-curing considerations for resin-based composite materials: a review. Part I. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry 31 (7):498–505; quiz 506, 508.

  23. Mills RW, Uhl A, Jandt KD (2002) Optical power outputs, spectra and dental composite depths of cure, obtained with blue light emitting diode (LED) and halogen light curing units (LCUs). Br Dent J 193(8):459–463 discussion 455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Owens BM (2006) Evaluation of curing performance of light-emitting polymerisation units. Eur J Gen Dent 54(1):17–20

    Google Scholar 

  25. Uhl A, Sigusch BW, Jandt KD (2004) Second generation LEDs for the polymerisation of oral biomaterials. Dent Mater 20(1):80–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wiggins KM, Hartung M, Althoff O, Wastian C, Mitra SB (2004) Curing performance of a new-generation light-emitting diode dental curing unit. J Am Dent Assoc 135(10):1471–1479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Santini A, Miletic V, Swift MD, Bradley M (2012) Degree of conversion and microhardness of TPO-containing resin-based composites cured by polywave and monowave LED units. J Dent 40(7):577–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.03.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sigusch BW, Pflaum T, Volpel A, Gretsch K, Hoy S, Watts DC, Jandt KD (2012) Resin-composite cytotoxicity varies with shade and irradiance. Dent Mater 28(3):312–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.12.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sigusch BW, Volpel A, Braun I, Uhl A, Jandt KD (2007) Influence of different light curing units on the cytotoxicity of various dental composites. Dent Mater 23(11):1342–1348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.11.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R (2001) Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report. J Adhes Dent 3(2):185–194

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rezwani-Kaminski T, Kamann W, Gaengler P (2002) Secondary caries susceptibility of teeth with long-term performing composite restorations. J Oral Rehabil 29(12):1131–1138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cvar JF, Ryge G (2005) Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 9(4):215–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0018-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ernst CP, Brandenbusch M, Meyer G, Canbek K, Gottschalk F, Willershausen B (2006) Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine-particle hybrid resin composite. Clin Oral Investig 10(2):119–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0041-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R, Brunton PA, Gurgan S, Kakaboura A, Shearer AC, Vanherle G, Wilson NH (2014) Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry - European Section. J Dent 42(4):377–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Uhl A, Mills RW, Jandt KD (2003) Photoinitiator dependent composite depth of cure and Knoop hardness with halogen and LED light curing units. Biomaterials 24(10):1787–1795

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Barabanti N, Gagliani M, Roulet JF, Testori T, Ozcan M, Cerutti A (2013) Marginal quality of posterior microhybrid resin composite restorations applied using two polymerisation protocols: 5-year randomised split mouth trial. J Dent 41(5):436–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.02.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Attar N, Korkmaz Y (2007) Effect of two light-emitting diode (LED) and one halogen curing light on the microleakage of Class V flowable composite restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 8(2):80–88

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Campregher UB, Samuel SM, Fortes CB, Medina AD, Collares FM, Ogliari FA (2007) Effectiveness of second-generation light-emitting diode (LED) light curing units. J Contemp Dent Pract 8(2):35–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Yaman BC, Efes BG, Dorter C, Gomec Y, Erdilek D, Buyukgokcesu S (2011) The effects of halogen and light-emitting diode light curing on the depth of cure and surface microhardness of composite resins. J Conserv Dent 14(2):136–139. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972–0707.82613

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Choudhary S, Suprabha B (2013) Effectiveness of light emitting diode and halogen light curing units for curing microhybrid and nanocomposites. J Conserv Dent 16(3):233–237. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972–0707.111322

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Yazici AR, Celik C, Ozgunaltay G, Dayangac B (2010) The effects of different light-curing units on the clinical performance of nanofilled composite resin restorations in non-carious cervical lesions: 3-year follow-up. J Adhes Dent 12(3):231–236. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a17536

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Koupis NS, Eliades T, Athanasiou AE (2008) Clinical evaluation of bracket bonding using two different polymerisation sources. The Angle Orthodontist 78(5):922–925. https://doi.org/10.2319/072807–351.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Krishnaswamy NR, Sunitha C (2007) Light-emitting diode vs halogen light curing of orthodontic brackets: a 15-month clinical study of bond failures. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 132(4):518–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.09.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mirabella D, Spena R, Scognamiglio G, Luca L, Gracco A, Siciliani G (2008) LED vs halogen light-curing of adhesive-precoated brackets. The Angle Orthodontist 78(5):935–940. https://doi.org/10.2319/042707–211.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Filipov IA, Vladimirov SB (2006) Residual monomer in a composite resin after light-curing with different sources, light intensities and spectra of radiation. Braz Dent J 17(1):34–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Uhl A, Volpel A, Sigusch BW (2006) Influence of heat from light curing units and dental composite polymerisation on cells in vitro. J Dent 34(4):298–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2005.07.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Uhl A, Michaelis C, Mills RW, Jandt KD (2004) The influence of storage and indenter load on the Knoop hardness of dental composites polymerised with LED and halogen technologies. Dent Mater: Off Publ Acad Dent Mater 20(1):21–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Uhl A, Mills RW, Rzanny AE, Jandt KD (2005) Time dependence of composite shrinkage using halogen and LED light curing. Dent Mater: Off Publ Acad Dent Mater 21(3):278–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.03.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Al Shaafi M, Maawadh A, Al Qahtani M (2011) Evaluation of light intensity output of QTH and LED curing devices in various governmental health institutions. Oper Dent 36(4):356–361. https://doi.org/10.2341/10–247-o

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hervas-Garcia A, Martinez-Lozano MA, Cabanes-Vila J, Barjau-Escribano A, Fos-Galve P (2006) Composite resins. A review of the materials and clinical indications. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 11(2):E215–E220

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kiremitci A, Alpaslan T, Gurgan S (2009) Six-year clinical evaluation of packable composite restorations. Oper Dent 34(1):11–17. https://doi.org/10.2341/08–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Laegreid T, Gjerdet NR, Johansson AK (2012) Extensive composite molar restorations: 3 years clinical evaluation. Acta Odontol Scand 70(4):344–352. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2011.603355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Schirrmeister JF, Huber K, Hellwig E, Hahn P (2009) Four-year evaluation of a resin composite including nanofillers in posterior cavities. J Adhes Dent 11(5):399–404

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kramer N, Garcia-Godoy F, Frankenberger R (2005) Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II: in vivo investigations. Am J Dent 18(2):75–81

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Cavalcante LM, Masouras K, Watts DC, Pimenta LA, Silikas N (2009) Effect of nanofillers’ size on surface properties after toothbrush abrasion. Am J Dent 22(1):60–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Heintze SD, Forjanic M, Ohmiti K, Rousson V (2010) Surface deterioration of dental materials after simulated toothbrushing in relation to brushing time and load. Dent Mater 26(4):306–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Janus J, Fauxpoint G, Arntz Y, Pelletier H, Etienne O (2010) Surface roughness and morphology of three nanocomposites after two different polishing treatments by a multitechnique approach. Dent Mater 26(5):416–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.09.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Dietz W, Montag R, Kraft U, Walther M, Sigusch BW, Gaengler P (2014) Longitudinal micromorphological 15-year results of posterior composite restorations using three-dimensional scanning electron microscopy. J Dent 42(8):959–969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.04.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Celik C, Arhun N, Yamanel K (2014) Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: a 3-year study. Med Princ Pract 23(5):453–459. https://doi.org/10.1159/000364874

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Palaniappan S, Bharadwaj D, Mattar DL, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P (2011) Nanofilled and microhybrid composite restorations: Five-year clinical wear performances. Dent Mater 27(7):692–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors do not have any potential conflict of interest. We thank the Institute of Medical Statistics, Computer Sciences and Documentation (IMSID), University Hospital Jena, Germany for his consulting support. No materials of any kind were provided by the manufacturer. Also, no financial support was received for the study.

Funding

The work was financially not supported by any institution or person.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Policlinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Jena University Hospital, An der alten Post 4, 07743, Jena, Germany

    Torsten Pflaum, Stefan Kranz, Regina Montag, Andrea Völpel & Bernd Sigusch

  2. Department of Surgical Sciences, Marquette University, Milwaukee, USA

    Arndt Güntsch

  3. School of Oral and Dental Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS1 2LY, UK

    Robin Mills

  4. Otto Schott Institute for Materials Research, 07743, Jena, Germany

    Klaus Jandt

Authors
  1. Torsten Pflaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Kranz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Regina Montag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arndt Güntsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrea Völpel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Robin Mills
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Klaus Jandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Bernd Sigusch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Torsten Pflaum.

Ethics declarations

Following ethics committee approval (1148–06/03; date of approval 07/10/2003), patients with carious lesions or insufficient restorations were recruited that joined the dental clinic for treatment. Prior to evaluation, all participants signed an informed consent.

Conflict of interest

Mr. Torsten Pflaum declares that he has no conflict of interest. Mr. Stefan Kranz declares that he has no conflict of interest. Mrs. Regina Montag declares that she has no conflict of interest. Mr. Arndt Güntsch declares that he has no conflict of interest. Mrs. Andrea Völpel declares that she has no conflict of interest. Mr. Robin Mills declares that he has no conflict of interest. Mr. Klaus Jandt declares that he has no conflict of interest. Mr. Bernd Sigusch declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does contain studies with human participants. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Submission declaration and verification

The results of the manuscript have not been published elsewhere. The publication was approved by all authors and will not be published in the same form anywhere else.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pflaum, T., Kranz, S., Montag, R. et al. Clinical long-term success of contemporary nano-filled resin composites in class I and II restorations cured by LED or halogen light. Clin Oral Invest 22, 1651–1662 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2226-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2226-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation