No abstract

Inadequate depth of cure may reduce the longevity of visible light-activated composite restorations. Radiation-activated composites, originally marketed for the restoration of anterior teeth, have been developed and refined for restoring occlusal and proximal cavities in posterior teeth. Clinical factors such as the accessibility of the light source, the direction of the light, intervening tooth tissue and cavity depth may limit depth of cure. Unfortunately, a hard top surface is no indication of adequate polymerization at the base of the cavity. The current investigation used a penetrometer to evaluate the depth of cure of a range of recently introduced 'universal' composite materials and assess the influence of shade and opacity on depth of cure. Depth of cure of the enamel opacity is always greater than that of the same shade of dentine for each manufacturer's product range.

The influence of porcelain thickness and opacity on the polymerization of two dual activated (microfine and hybrid) and one light irradiated (hybrid) resin cements was assessed by hardness measurements. The surface microhardness values of the upper and lower surface of 1 mm thick resin cement specimens were determined. Specimens were polymerized using 40s irradiation beneath different thicknesses and opacities of porcelain discs. The results showed that increasing the thicknesses and opacity of the porcelain produced a statistically significant decrease in microhardness of the resin-based cements. The effect of attenuation is less for the microfine cement than for the hybrids. In the case of hybrid cements, the light activated material performed better than the dual activated cement.

The procedure developed in this investigation is suitable for determining the abrasion resistance of restorative materials to toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion. Ideally, a restoration should have an abrasion resistance similar to that of enamel. Of the materials tested, gold was the only one that wore slightly less than enamel, whilst amalgam wore almost twice as quickly. The silicate material and composites (excluding TD.71) wear away 2-4 times faster than enamel. TD.71 and especially the unfilled resin exhibited very high rates of abrasion. After prolonged toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion, the surfaces of gold and amalgam were considerably smoother than those of the silicate and composite materials.