AIM: This study compared the impact of two resin infiltration systems on microhardness of demineralized enamel before and after an acidic challenge. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of forty human maxillary molar teeth were used in this study. Each tooth has 4 groups (four standardized windows onto each tooth). Group A1: Untreated sound enamel surface (positive control), Group A2: Artificially demineralized enamel surface (negative control), Group A3: Icon resin infiltrating to demineralized enamel, while Group A4: Single bond universal adhesive applied to the demineralized enamel surface. All teeth were immersed in a demineralizing solution. The groups (A3 and A4) were further subdivided into two subgroups according to acidic ethanol challenge Subgroup B1: Specimens tested before an acidic challenge and B2: Specimens tested after an acidic challenge. Vickers microhardness test was done for all groups. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to study the difference between tested groups on mean microhardness within each group. Tukey’s post-hoc test was used for pair-wise comparison between the means when ANOVA test was performed, and the significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Icon resin infiltration and single bond universal adhesive showed significantly higher mean microhardness than negative control, but significantly lower mean microhardness than positive control. However, insignificant difference was found between icon and single bond universal adhesive. After the acidic challenge, icon resin infiltration showed significantly higher mean microhardness than negative control. However, single bond universal adhesive showed insignificant difference as compared to the negative control. CONCLUSION: After an acidic challenge, icon resin infiltration was more successful than single bond universal total-etch adhesive system in microhardness. RECOMMENDATION: Icon resin infiltration technique is a promising, noninvasive approach that prevents the progress of the carious lesion.
AIM:This study evaluated the influence of two light sources on the microhardness of two recent composite resins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 specimens were prepared and divided into two groups according to the composite resin restoration used (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk fill) and (Universal Nanohybrid Mosaic). Each group was subdivided into four subgroups according to the curing sources used with different curing duration’s laser curing system (SIROLaser) for 10, 15, and 20 s and conventional blue light system (LED) for 20 s. A microhardness testing machine was used to assess the microhardness of Tetric EvoCeram Bulk fill and Universal Nanohybrid Mosaic. Two-way ANOVA statistical test was used for comparing resin composite and curing energy effect on different variable studied. One-way ANOVA followed by pair-wise Tukey’s post hoc tests was performed to detect significance between each composite subgroups and t-test for subgroups. P ≤ 0.05 is considered statistically significant in all tests. RESULTS: LED cured Tetric EvoCeram Bulk fill composite resin recorded higher bottom to top ratio (B/T ratio) than laser cured one and the difference in B/T ratio between both energies was statistically non-significant. LED cured Mosaic composite resin recorded higher B/T ratio than laser cured one . The difference in bottom to top ratio between both curing devices was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: SIROLaser Blue laser device increases the degree of polymerization and achieves better curing of composite resins than LED. RECOMMENDATION: Different types of curing systems are present in the dental practice. The use of SIROLaser Blue laser to photopolymerize composite resin will offers proper polymerization properties.
Background This study evaluated the influence of two light sources on the microhardness of two recent composite resins.Methods A total of one hundred and twenty specimens were prepared and divided into two groups according to the composite resin restoration used (Tetric EvoCeram Bulkfill) and (Universal Nanohybrid Mosaic). Each group was subdivided into four subgroups according to the light source used with different curing intervals: laser curing system (SIROLaser) for 10,15, and 20 seconds and conventional blue light system (LED) for 20 seconds. Microhardness testing machine was used to assess the microhardness. Two-way ANOVA was done for comparing resin composite and curing energy effect on different variable studied. One-way ANOVA followed by pair-wise Tukey’s post-hoc tests were performed to detect significance between each composite subgroups and t-test for subgroups. P values ≤ 0.05 are considered statistically significant in all tests.Results LED cured Tetric EvoCeram Bulkfill composite resin recorded higher B/T ratio than laser cured one and the difference in B/T ratio between both energies was statistically non-significant. LED cured Mosaic composite resin recorded higher B/T ratio than laser cured one. The difference in B/T ratio between both energies was statistically significant.Conclusion SIROLaser Blue laser device has been promoted for composite resin curing with different curing intervals, but the high cost and technique sensitivity result in their limited use. Clinical Significance: Different types of curing systems are present in the dental practice. The use of SIROLaser Blue laser to photopolymerize composite resin will offers proper polymerization properties.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.