YENİ NESİL LED IŞIK CİHAZLARININ FOTOPOLİMERİZASYON ETKİNLİĞİNİN İNCELENMESİ


Tağtekin D. (Executive) , Yücel M.

Project Supported by Higher Education Institutions, 2019 - 2020

  • Project Type: Project Supported by Higher Education Institutions
  • Begin Date: March 2019
  • End Date: January 2020

Project Abstract

EVALUATION OF PHOTOPOLYMERIZATION EFFICIENCY OF NEW GENERATION LED CURING UNITS 

Merve Yücel, Dilek Tağtekin, Department of Restorative Dentistry 

Aim: The aim of this study was to determine degree of conversion of two composite resins with Fourier transformed infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) device and Vickers microhardness device after polymerizing with five different LED curing units. At the same time was to investigate of microleakage scores of Class II box cavities after restoration with three different layering method and polymerize with five different LED curing units. Materials and Methods: This study consists of two separate parts. At the first part; after nanoseramic composite resin (Ceram.x SphereTEC one universal A2, Dentsply, Germany) and bulk fill composite resin (SDR flow + A2, Dentsply, Germany) had been polymerized with five different LED curing unites [(Smartlite Focus, Dentsply, USA), (Led.E (Woodpecker, China), (Valo Cordless, Ultradent, USA), (Bluephase N, Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein), (D-Light Pro (GC, USA)] FTIR analysis and Vickers microhardness test were made. Correlation was made of FTIR analysis and micro hardness test. At the second part; Class II box cavities were prepared of 150 extracted lower molar teeth. The teeth were polymerized with three different layering methods and five different curing units and subjected to microleakage analysis. Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis. Spearman's correlation analysis was used to determine of correlation between FTIR and Vickers microhardness tests. p value less than 0.05 was accepted significance. Results: At the results of FTIR analysis, SDR bulk fill composite was significantly higher than Ceram.x (p<0.05). Comparing of curing units; while the degree of conversion of Ceram.x composite did not show a significant difference to use of different curing units (p=0.3005), there were significant differences in the degree of conversion of SDR composite (p=0.006). No correlation was found in FTIR analysis and microhardness analysis (p> 0.05). Using different layering methods (p=0.7683) and different curing units (p=0.9075) did not show significant differences on microleakage. Conclusion: In FTIR analysis, SDR bulk fill composite had higher degree of conversion than Ceram.x, whereas Ceram.x composite was higher in hardness. There was no correlation between FTIR analysis and microhardness test. Using different layering methods and different curing units did not make any difference on microleakage. Keywords: composite resin, LED curing unit, degree of conversion, microhardness, microleakage