Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

COMPARISON OF LINEAR POLYMERIZATION SHRINKAGE IN COMPOSITES AND COMPOMER POLYMERIZED BY PLASMA ARC OR CONVENTIONAL VISIBLE LIGHT CURING

리노미터를 이용한 할로겐 가시광선 광조사기와 플라즈마 아크 광조사기의 복합레진 및 컴포머의 광중합 양상 비교

  • Lee, Jae-Ik (Department of Conservatine Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Park, Sung-Ho (Department of Conservatine Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • 이재익 (연세대학교 치과대학 보존학 교실) ;
  • 박성호 (연세대학교 치과대학 보존학 교실)
  • Published : 2002.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of plasma arc curing (PAC) unit for composite and compomer curing. To compare its effectiveness with conventional quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) light curing unit, the polymerization shrinkage rates and amounts of three composites (Z100, Z250, Synergy Duo Shade) and one compomer, that had been light cured by PAC unit or QTH unit, was compared using a custome made linometer. The measurement of polymerization shrinkage was peformed after polymerization with either QTH unit or PAC unit. In case of curing with the PAC unit, the composite was light cured with Apollo 95E for 6s, the power density of which was recorded as 1350 mW/$\textrm{cm}^2$ by Coltolux Light Meter. For light curing with QTH unit, the composite was light cured for 30s with the XL2500, the power density of which was recorded as 800 mW/$\textrm{cm}^2$ by Coltolux Light Meter. The amount of linear polymerization shrinkage was recorded in the computer every 0.5s for 60s. Ten measurements were made for each material. The amount of linear polymerization shrinkage for each material in 10s and 60s which were cured with PAC or QTH unit were compared with t test. The amount of polymerization shrinkage in the tested materials were compared with 1way ANOVA with Duncan's multiple range test. As for the amounts of polymerization shrinkage in 60s, there was no difference between PAC unit and QTH unit in Z250 and Synergy Duo Shade. In Z100 and Dyract AP, it was lower when it was cured with PAC unit than when it was cured with QTH unit (p<0.05). As for the amounts of polymerization shrinkage in 10s, there was no difference between PAC unit and QTH unit in Z100 and Dyract AP. The amounts of polymerization shrinkage was significantly higher when it was cured with PAC unit in Z250 and Synergy Duo Shade (p<0.05). The amounts of polymerization shrinkage in the tested materials when they were cured with QTH unit were Z250 (6.6um) < Z100 (9.3um), Dyract AP (9.7um) < Synergy Duo Shade (11.2um) (p<0.05). The amount of polymerization shrinkage when the materials were cured with PAC unit were Dyract AP (5.6um) < Z100 (8.1um), Z250(7.0um) < Synergy Duo Shade (11.2um) (p<0.05).

Keywords

References

  1. Sakaguchi RL, Peters MCRB, Nelson SR, Douglas WH, Poort HW: Effects of polymerization contraction in composite restorations. J Dent. 20: 178-182,1992 https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(92)90133-W
  2. Attin T, Buchalla W, Kielbassa AM, Helwig E: Curing shrinkage and volumetric changes of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Dent Mater 11: 359-362, 1995 https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(95)80035-2
  3. Kinomoto Y. Torii M. Takeshige F, Ebisu S: Comparison of polymerization contraction stresses between self- and light-curing composites. J Dent 27: 383-389, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00065-7
  4. Brannstrom M, Vajinovic O: Response of the dental pulp to invasion of bacteria around three filling materials. J Dent Child. 43: 83-89,1976
  5. Davidson CL, de Gee A J, Feilzer A: The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress. J Dent Res. 1984;63: 1396-1399 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345840630121101
  6. Jorgensen KD, Asmussen E, Shimokobe H: Enamel damages caused by contracting restorative resins. Scand J Dent Res 83: 120-122, 1975
  7. Davidson C L. de Gee A J: Relaxation of polymerization contraction stresses by flow in dental composites. J Dent Res 63: 146-148,1984 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345840630021001
  8. Hay JN, Shortall AC: Polymerization contraction and reaction kinetics of three chemically activated restorative resins. J Dent 16: 172-176, 1988 https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(88)90031-0
  9. de Gee AJ, Feilzer AJ, Davidson CL, True linear polymerization shrinkage of unfilled resins and composites determined with a linometer. Dent Mater 9:11-14, 1993 https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(93)90097-A
  10. Peutzfeldt A. Sahafi A. Asmussen E. Characterization of resin composites polymerized with plasma arc curing units. Dent Mater 16:330-336, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00025-7
  11. Stritikus F, Owen B. An in vitro study of microleakage of occlusal composite restorations polymerized by a conventional curring light and a PAC curing light. J Clinic Pedo Dent 24:221-227, 2000
  12. Munksgaard EC, Peutzfeldt A. Asmussen E. Elution of TEGDMA and BisGMA from a resin and a resin composite cured with halogen or plasma light. Eur J Oral Sci 108: 341-345,2000 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0722.2000.108004341.x
  13. Smith DL, Schoonover IG. Direct filling resins: dimensional changes resulting from polymerization shrinkage and water sorption. JADA. 46; 540-544, 1953 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1953.0089
  14. Puckett AD, Smith R. Method to measure the polymerization shrinkage of light-cured composites. J Prosth Dent. 68: 56-58, 1992 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90285-I
  15. Park SH. Krejci I. Lutz F. A Comparison of microhardeness of resin composites polymerized by plasma arc or conventional visible light curing. Oper Dent. 27: 30-37. 2002
  16. Lee IB A new method-Real time measurement of the initial dynamic volumetric shrinkage of composite resins during polymerization shrinkage. The Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 26:134-140, 2001