Modulated photoactivation methods: Influence on contraction stress, degree of conversion and push-out bond strength of composite restoratives

Leonardo Goncalves Cunha, Roberta Caroline Bruschi Alonso, Carmem Pfeifer, Lourenço Correr-Sobrinho, Jack Ferracane, Mário Alexandre Coelho Sinhoreti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Verify the influence of curing methods on contraction stress, stress rate, and degree of conversion (DC) of a restorative composite and on bond strength of composite restoratives. Methods: For the stress test, composite (0.84 mm thick) was applied between two 5-mm diameter glass rods, mounted in a servohydraulic machine. Stress rate was taken by the value of stress/time at each second. DC was measured by micro-FTIR. Bond strength testing was performed using a push-out test. The C-factor in all tests was 3.0. Four curing methods were tested: continuous light (CL), soft-start (SS), and two pulse delay methods using different initial irradiances-150 mW/cm2 (PD150) and 80 mW/cm2 (PD80). Results were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Results: Stress values ranged from 7.9 MPa (PD80) to 10.3 MPa (CL). No statistical difference was verified among CL, SS, and PD150. PD80 presented statistically lower stress values compared to CL and SS. CL presented the highest maximum stress rate, followed by SS, PD150 and PD80. Mean DC values ranged from 54.2% (PD150) to 55.9% (PD80), with no difference observed among the methods. For the bond strength test, values ranged from 26.4 MPa (CL) to 35.5 MPa (PD150). PD150 and PD80 were both statistically superior to SS and CL. SS presented statistically higher bond strength compared to CL. Conclusions: Modulated curing methods were shown to be effective in reducing contraction stress rate and improving the strength of the bonded interface, and without compromising the DC of the restorative composite.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)318-324
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Dentistry
Volume35
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2007

Fingerprint

Light
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy
Exercise Test
Glass
Analysis of Variance

Keywords

  • Bond strength
  • Composite restoratives
  • Contraction stress
  • Curing methods
  • FTIR
  • Restorative composite

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Modulated photoactivation methods : Influence on contraction stress, degree of conversion and push-out bond strength of composite restoratives. / Cunha, Leonardo Goncalves; Alonso, Roberta Caroline Bruschi; Pfeifer, Carmem; Correr-Sobrinho, Lourenço; Ferracane, Jack; Sinhoreti, Mário Alexandre Coelho.

In: Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 35, No. 4, 04.2007, p. 318-324.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cunha, Leonardo Goncalves ; Alonso, Roberta Caroline Bruschi ; Pfeifer, Carmem ; Correr-Sobrinho, Lourenço ; Ferracane, Jack ; Sinhoreti, Mário Alexandre Coelho. / Modulated photoactivation methods : Influence on contraction stress, degree of conversion and push-out bond strength of composite restoratives. In: Journal of Dentistry. 2007 ; Vol. 35, No. 4. pp. 318-324.
@article{115d6f45fc144aa68cbf0bed17f4a4f4,
title = "Modulated photoactivation methods: Influence on contraction stress, degree of conversion and push-out bond strength of composite restoratives",
abstract = "Objectives: Verify the influence of curing methods on contraction stress, stress rate, and degree of conversion (DC) of a restorative composite and on bond strength of composite restoratives. Methods: For the stress test, composite (0.84 mm thick) was applied between two 5-mm diameter glass rods, mounted in a servohydraulic machine. Stress rate was taken by the value of stress/time at each second. DC was measured by micro-FTIR. Bond strength testing was performed using a push-out test. The C-factor in all tests was 3.0. Four curing methods were tested: continuous light (CL), soft-start (SS), and two pulse delay methods using different initial irradiances-150 mW/cm2 (PD150) and 80 mW/cm2 (PD80). Results were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Results: Stress values ranged from 7.9 MPa (PD80) to 10.3 MPa (CL). No statistical difference was verified among CL, SS, and PD150. PD80 presented statistically lower stress values compared to CL and SS. CL presented the highest maximum stress rate, followed by SS, PD150 and PD80. Mean DC values ranged from 54.2{\%} (PD150) to 55.9{\%} (PD80), with no difference observed among the methods. For the bond strength test, values ranged from 26.4 MPa (CL) to 35.5 MPa (PD150). PD150 and PD80 were both statistically superior to SS and CL. SS presented statistically higher bond strength compared to CL. Conclusions: Modulated curing methods were shown to be effective in reducing contraction stress rate and improving the strength of the bonded interface, and without compromising the DC of the restorative composite.",
keywords = "Bond strength, Composite restoratives, Contraction stress, Curing methods, FTIR, Restorative composite",
author = "Cunha, {Leonardo Goncalves} and Alonso, {Roberta Caroline Bruschi} and Carmem Pfeifer and Louren{\cc}o Correr-Sobrinho and Jack Ferracane and Sinhoreti, {M{\'a}rio Alexandre Coelho}",
year = "2007",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.jdent.2006.10.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "318--324",
journal = "Journal of Dentistry",
issn = "0300-5712",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Modulated photoactivation methods

T2 - Influence on contraction stress, degree of conversion and push-out bond strength of composite restoratives

AU - Cunha, Leonardo Goncalves

AU - Alonso, Roberta Caroline Bruschi

AU - Pfeifer, Carmem

AU - Correr-Sobrinho, Lourenço

AU - Ferracane, Jack

AU - Sinhoreti, Mário Alexandre Coelho

PY - 2007/4

Y1 - 2007/4

N2 - Objectives: Verify the influence of curing methods on contraction stress, stress rate, and degree of conversion (DC) of a restorative composite and on bond strength of composite restoratives. Methods: For the stress test, composite (0.84 mm thick) was applied between two 5-mm diameter glass rods, mounted in a servohydraulic machine. Stress rate was taken by the value of stress/time at each second. DC was measured by micro-FTIR. Bond strength testing was performed using a push-out test. The C-factor in all tests was 3.0. Four curing methods were tested: continuous light (CL), soft-start (SS), and two pulse delay methods using different initial irradiances-150 mW/cm2 (PD150) and 80 mW/cm2 (PD80). Results were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Results: Stress values ranged from 7.9 MPa (PD80) to 10.3 MPa (CL). No statistical difference was verified among CL, SS, and PD150. PD80 presented statistically lower stress values compared to CL and SS. CL presented the highest maximum stress rate, followed by SS, PD150 and PD80. Mean DC values ranged from 54.2% (PD150) to 55.9% (PD80), with no difference observed among the methods. For the bond strength test, values ranged from 26.4 MPa (CL) to 35.5 MPa (PD150). PD150 and PD80 were both statistically superior to SS and CL. SS presented statistically higher bond strength compared to CL. Conclusions: Modulated curing methods were shown to be effective in reducing contraction stress rate and improving the strength of the bonded interface, and without compromising the DC of the restorative composite.

AB - Objectives: Verify the influence of curing methods on contraction stress, stress rate, and degree of conversion (DC) of a restorative composite and on bond strength of composite restoratives. Methods: For the stress test, composite (0.84 mm thick) was applied between two 5-mm diameter glass rods, mounted in a servohydraulic machine. Stress rate was taken by the value of stress/time at each second. DC was measured by micro-FTIR. Bond strength testing was performed using a push-out test. The C-factor in all tests was 3.0. Four curing methods were tested: continuous light (CL), soft-start (SS), and two pulse delay methods using different initial irradiances-150 mW/cm2 (PD150) and 80 mW/cm2 (PD80). Results were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Results: Stress values ranged from 7.9 MPa (PD80) to 10.3 MPa (CL). No statistical difference was verified among CL, SS, and PD150. PD80 presented statistically lower stress values compared to CL and SS. CL presented the highest maximum stress rate, followed by SS, PD150 and PD80. Mean DC values ranged from 54.2% (PD150) to 55.9% (PD80), with no difference observed among the methods. For the bond strength test, values ranged from 26.4 MPa (CL) to 35.5 MPa (PD150). PD150 and PD80 were both statistically superior to SS and CL. SS presented statistically higher bond strength compared to CL. Conclusions: Modulated curing methods were shown to be effective in reducing contraction stress rate and improving the strength of the bonded interface, and without compromising the DC of the restorative composite.

KW - Bond strength

KW - Composite restoratives

KW - Contraction stress

KW - Curing methods

KW - FTIR

KW - Restorative composite

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33847648831&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33847648831&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jdent.2006.10.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jdent.2006.10.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 17113700

AN - SCOPUS:33847648831

VL - 35

SP - 318

EP - 324

JO - Journal of Dentistry

JF - Journal of Dentistry

SN - 0300-5712

IS - 4

ER -