F H Rasetto1, C F Driscoll, J A von Fraunhofer. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, University of Maryland, Baltimore 21201, USA. fhr001@dental.umaryland.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of 3 different light sources to polymerize a light curing resin cement beneath 3 types of porcelain veneer materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A conventional halogen light, a plasma arc light, and a high intensity halogen light were used to polymerize resin cement (Variolink II; Ivoclar North America Inc, Amherst, NY) through disks of veneer materials. Equal diameter and thickness disks of feldspathic porcelain (Ceramco II; Ceramco Inc, Burlington, NJ), pressable ceramic (IPS Empress; Ivoclar North America Inc), and aluminous porcelain (Vitadur Alpha; Vident Inc, Brea, CA) were used as an interface between the curing light tips and the light polymerized resin cement. The resin cement/veneer combinations were exposed to 4 different photopolymerization time protocols of 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 15 seconds, and 20 seconds for high intensity light units (Apollo 95E [Dental Medical Diagnostic Systems Inc, Westlake Village, CA] and Kreativ 2000 [Kreativ Inc, San Diego, CA]), and 20 seconds, 40 seconds, 60 seconds, and 80 seconds for conventional halogen light (Optilux; Demetron Research Inc, Danbury, CT). A surface hardness test (Knoop indenter) was used to determine the level of photopolymerization of the resin through the ceramic materials with each of the light sources. The data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and a post-hoc Scheffe test (p < .05). RESULTS: The data indicates that the Variolink II Knoop Hardness Number values vary with the light source, the veneer material, and the polymerization time. For a given light and veneer material, Knoop Hardness Number increases with longer polymerization times. The Kreativ light showed statistically significant differences (p < .05) between all test polymerization times. Use of this light required a polymerization time of greater than 20 seconds to reach maximum resin cement hardness. For samples polymerized with the Apollo light, there were statistically significant (p < .05) differences in surface hardness between samples polymerized at all times, except for the 15-second and 20-second times. Samples polymerized with the halogen light showed no statistically significant (p < .05) differences in hardness between polymerization times of 60 seconds and 80 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: High intensity curing lights achieve adequate polymerization of resin cements through veneers in a markedly shorter time period than the conventional halogen light. However, the data in this report indicate that a minimum exposure time of 15 seconds with the Kreativ light and 10 seconds with the Apollo 95E light should be used to polymerize the Variolink II resin, regardless of the composition of the veneer. Conventional halogen lights required a correspondingly greater polymerization time of 60 seconds. Copyright 2001 by The American College of Prosthodontists.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of 3 different light sources to polymerize a light curing resin cement beneath 3 types of porcelain veneer materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A conventional halogen light, a plasma arc light, and a high intensity halogen light were used to polymerize resin cement (Variolink II; Ivoclar North America Inc, Amherst, NY) through disks of veneer materials. Equal diameter and thickness disks of feldspathic porcelain (Ceramco II; Ceramco Inc, Burlington, NJ), pressable ceramic (IPS Empress; Ivoclar North America Inc), and aluminous porcelain (Vitadur Alpha; Vident Inc, Brea, CA) were used as an interface between the curing light tips and the light polymerized resin cement. The resin cement/veneer combinations were exposed to 4 different photopolymerization time protocols of 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 15 seconds, and 20 seconds for high intensity light units (Apollo 95E [Dental Medical Diagnostic Systems Inc, Westlake Village, CA] and Kreativ 2000 [Kreativ Inc, San Diego, CA]), and 20 seconds, 40 seconds, 60 seconds, and 80 seconds for conventional halogen light (Optilux; Demetron Research Inc, Danbury, CT). A surface hardness test (Knoop indenter) was used to determine the level of photopolymerization of the resin through the ceramic materials with each of the light sources. The data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and a post-hoc Scheffe test (p < .05). RESULTS: The data indicates that the Variolink II Knoop Hardness Number values vary with the light source, the veneer material, and the polymerization time. For a given light and veneer material, Knoop Hardness Number increases with longer polymerization times. The Kreativ light showed statistically significant differences (p < .05) between all test polymerization times. Use of this light required a polymerization time of greater than 20 seconds to reach maximum resin cementhardness. For samples polymerized with the Apollo light, there were statistically significant (p < .05) differences in surface hardness between samples polymerized at all times, except for the 15-second and 20-second times. Samples polymerized with the halogen light showed no statistically significant (p < .05) differences in hardness between polymerization times of 60 seconds and 80 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: High intensity curing lights achieve adequate polymerization of resin cements through veneers in a markedly shorter time period than the conventional halogen light. However, the data in this report indicate that a minimum exposure time of 15 seconds with the Kreativ light and 10 seconds with the Apollo 95E light should be used to polymerize the Variolink II resin, regardless of the composition of the veneer. Conventional halogen lights required a correspondingly greater polymerization time of 60 seconds. Copyright 2001 by The American College of Prosthodontists.