OBJECTIVES: Adhesive luting of indirect restorations can be carried out employing dual- or light-curing materials. This in vitro study evaluated the degree of conversion (DC) of the materials employed in this procedure, seeking how the combination of time and power of curing applied during polymerisation, as well as the temperature of the light-curing composite, influenced the DC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and eighty onlays of different thicknesses (2 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm) were luted with three different composites: two dual-curing cements (Variolink II and Calibra) and a light-curing composite (Venus). The same halogen lamp was used with three different modalities selected to provide a constant quantity of energy. The time/power combinations tested were 400 mW/cm(2) for 120 s, 800 mW/cm(2) for 60s and 1200 mW/cm(2) for 40 s. The light-curing composite was employed at room temperature and after preheating at 54 degrees C. Each sample was examined in three positions using the Micro-Raman Dilor HR LabRam spectrometer to evaluate the polymer conversion degree. The data were analysed using analysis of variance and the Student-Newman-Keuls test (p=0.05). RESULTS: The dual-curing materials showed average conversion percentages close to 64%, although onlays thickness clearly influence the degree of conversion, the light-curing composite showed satisfactory results only when onlays thickness was thin, however preheating significantly improved the performance of the light-curing composite under onlays of great thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal luting of indirect restorations is clearly dependent from light source power, irradiation time and dual-cure luting cement or light-curing composite chosen. It should be calibrated for each material to acquire high DCs. Preheating of light-curing only composites allows for the materials to reach optimal conversion degrees.
OBJECTIVES: Adhesive luting of indirect restorations can be carried out employing dual- or light-curing materials. This in vitro study evaluated the degree of conversion (DC) of the materials employed in this procedure, seeking how the combination of time and power of curing applied during polymerisation, as well as the temperature of the light-curing composite, influenced the DC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and eighty onlays of different thicknesses (2 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm) were luted with three different composites: two dual-curing cements (Variolink II and Calibra) and a light-curing composite (Venus). The same halogen lamp was used with three different modalities selected to provide a constant quantity of energy. The time/power combinations tested were 400 mW/cm(2) for 120 s, 800 mW/cm(2) for 60s and 1200 mW/cm(2) for 40 s. The light-curing composite was employed at room temperature and after preheating at 54 degrees C. Each sample was examined in three positions using the Micro-Raman Dilor HR LabRam spectrometer to evaluate the polymer conversion degree. The data were analysed using analysis of variance and the Student-Newman-Keuls test (p=0.05). RESULTS: The dual-curing materials showed average conversion percentages close to 64%, although onlays thickness clearly influence the degree of conversion, the light-curing composite showed satisfactory results only when onlays thickness was thin, however preheating significantly improved the performance of the light-curing composite under onlays of great thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal luting of indirect restorations is clearly dependent from light source power, irradiation time and dual-cure luting cement or light-curing composite chosen. It should be calibrated for each material to acquire high DCs. Preheating of light-curing only composites allows for the materials to reach optimal conversion degrees.