Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 271–279 | Cite as

Effect of different curing protocols on the mechanical properties of low-viscosity bulk-fill composites

  • Nicoleta IlieEmail author
  • Katharina Stark
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the impact of curing conditions—exposure time, mode, energy density and exposure distance—on the efficiency of curing flowable bulk-fill resin-based composites (RBCs) at simulated clinical relevant filling depths.

Materials and methods

Four flowable bulk-fill RBCs were investigated by assessing in 200 μm steps the variation in micro-mechanical properties (Vickers hardness (HV) and indentation modulus (E)) within simulated 6-mm-deep fillings (n = 5), considering 16 different curing modes/conditions. The exposure duration was 5, 20 and 40 s in the standard power mode; 3, 4 and 8 s in the high power mode; and 3 and 6 s in the plasma mode. Besides, the curing unit was placed at 0 and 7 mm distance away from the specimen’s surface. Measurements were performed after 24 h of storage in distilled water at 37 °C. The depth of cure (DOC) was calculated as the 80 % hardness drop-off. The curing unit’s irradiance at exposure distances up to 10 mm was monitored for all irradiation modes in 1 mm steps by means of a laboratory-grade spectrometer.

Results

Results were compared using one- and multiple way ANOVA and Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD) post hoc test (α = 0.05). A multivariate analysis (general linear model) assessed the effect strength of the parameters material, energy density reaching the specimen’s surface (2.63 to 47.03 J/cm2), exposure distance and curing mode on HV, E and DOC. The effect of the parameter material was significant and strong on all measured properties (p < 0.05, partial eta-squared (η P 2) = 0.683 for E, 0.724 for HV and 0.199 for DOC). Energy density exerted in all materials the strongest influence on the measured properties, while the influence of distance was strong on DOC and low or even not significant on HV and E.

Conclusions

The susceptibility to variation in irradiance under the simulated clinical conditions was material dependent, while lower and upper energy density limits for curing the materials were defined.

Clinical relevance

Materials react differently to the supplied irradiance. An exposure time of 20 s at moderate irradiance is recommended for all materials. The highest mechanical properties were reached not at the specimens’ surface, but in deeper layers (0.4 to 3.1 mm).

Keywords

Bulk-fill resin-based composites Irradiance Energy density Hardness Modulus of elasticity 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Czasch P, Ilie N (2013) In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig 17(1):227–235. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0702-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ilie N, Kessler A, Durner J (2013) Influence of various irradiation processes on the mechanical properties and polymerisation kinetics of bulk-fill resin based composites. J Dent 41(8):695–702. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.05.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M (2013) Bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent 38(6):618–625. doi: 10.2341/12-395-L CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bucuta S, Ilie N (2014) Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin based composites. Clin Oral Investig. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-1177-y PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moszner N, Fischer UK, Ganster B, Liska R, Rheinberger V (2008) Benzoyl germanium derivatives as novel visible light photoinitiators for dental materials. Dent Mater 24(7):901–907. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.11.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    El-Safty S, Silikas N, Watts DC (2012) Creep deformation of restorative resin-composites intended for bulk-fill placement. Dent Mater 28(8):928–935. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.038 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jin X, Bertrand S, Hammesfahr P (2009) New radically polymerizable resins with remarkably low curing stress. J Dent Res 88(Spec Iss A):1651Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ilie N, Hickel R (2011) Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDR technology. Dent Mater 27(4):348–355. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.11.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moorthy A, Hogg CH, Dowling AH, Grufferty BF, Benetti AR, Fleming GJ (2012) Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with bulk-fill flowable resin-based composite base materials. J Dent 40(6):500–505. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.02.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ilie N, Bauer H, Draenert M, Hickel R (2013) Resin-based composite light-cured properties assessed by laboratory standards and simulated clinical conditions. Oper Dent 38(2):159–167. doi: 10.2341/12-084-L CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shortall A, El-Mahy W, Stewardson D, Addison O, Palin W (2013) Initial fracture resistance and curing temperature rise of ten contemporary resin-based composites with increasing radiant exposure. J Dent 41(5):455–463. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.02.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DIN-50359-1 (1997) Testing of metallic materials—universal hardness test—part 1: test method.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Primus CM, Chu CC, Shelby JE, Buldrini E, Heckle CE (2002) Opalescence of dental porcelain enamels. Quintessence Int 33(6):439–449PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shortall AC, Palin WM, Burtscher P (2008) Refractive index mismatch and monomer reactivity influence composite curing depth. J Dent Res 87(1):84–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee YK, Lu H, Powers JM (2005) Measurement of opalescence of resin composites. Dent Mater 21(11):1068–1074. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.03.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Azzopardi N, Moharamzadeh K, Wood DJ, Martin N, van Noort R (2009) Effect of resin matrix composition on the translucency of experimental dental composite resins. Dent Mater 25(12):1564–1568. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.07.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frauscher KE, Ilie N (2013) Degree of conversion of nano-hybrid resin-based composites with novel and conventional matrix formulation. Clin Oral Investig 17(2):635–642. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0736-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Burgess J, Cakir D (2010) Comparative properties of low-shrinkage composite resins. Compend Contin Educ Dent 31(Spec No 2):10–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ellakwa A, Cho N, Lee IB (2007) The effect of resin matrix composition on the polymerization shrinkage and rheological properties of experimental dental composites. Dent Mater 23(10):1229–1235. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.11.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ge J, Trujillo M, Stansbury J (2005) Synthesis and photopolymerization of low shrinkage methacrylate monomers containing bulky substituent groups. Dent Mater 21(12):1163–1169. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.02.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sideridou I, Tserki V, Papanastasiou G (2002) Effect of chemical structure on degree of conversion in light-cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins. Biomaterials 23(8):1819–1829CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Buonocore MG (1955) A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 34(6):849–853CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Glenn JF (1979) Comments on Dr. Bowen’s presentation. J Dent Res 58(5):1504–1506. doi: 10.1177/00220345790580051401 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ling L, Xu X, Choi GY, Billodeaux D, Guo G, Diwan RM (2009) Novel F-releasing composite with improved mechanical properties. J Dent Res 88(1):83–88. doi: 10.1177/0022034508328254 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH (1998) Do dental composites always shrink toward the light? J Dent Res 77(6):1435–1445CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kakaboura A, Rahiotis C, Watts D, Silikas N, Eliades G (2007) 3D-marginal adaptation versus setting shrinkage in light-cured microhybrid resin composites. Dent Mater 23(3):272–278. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.020 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Musanje L, Darvell BW (2003) Polymerization of resin composite restorative materials: exposure reciprocity. Dent Mater 19(6):531–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rueggeberg FA, Caughman WF, Curtis JW Jr, Davis HC (1993) Factors affecting cure at depths within light-activated resin composites. Am J Dent 6(2):91–95PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Operative/Restorative Dentistry, Periodontology and PedodonticsLudwig-Maximilians-University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations