No abstract

Objectives:To evaluate the influence of various photoactivation techniques on the internal gap, Knoop-hardness, and polymerization depth of silorane- and methacrylate-based composites in Class II restorations.Methods:Preparations were made in third molars (n = 10), according to composites (Filtek P60: methacrylate; Filtek P90: silorane) and photoactivation techniques (OC: occlusal photoactivation (control); OBL: occlusal+buccal+lingual photoactivation; and BLO: buccal+lingual+occlusal photoactivation (transdental)). Composites were inserted in two increments, both individually photoactivated for 20s. After 24h, specimens were sectioned and the ratio of internal gaps to interface length (%) recorded. Hardness was tested across the transversal section of restorations (1–4 mm below the surface).Results:Silorane restorations showed significantly lower gaps compared with methacrylate, regardless of polymerization technique (P<.05). Supplementary energy dose in OBL and BLO protocols caused significant increase in gaps in silorane restorations (P<.05). For methacrylate restorations, OBL activation caused significantly higher gap formation (P<.05). Significantly lower hardness values were seen for silorane than for methacrylate composites (P<.05), regardless of depth and photoactivation. Significantly higher hardness values were seen in BLO activation for methacrylate restorations compared with control (P<.05); for silorane, no differences were observed. Significantly higher hardness values were observed at 1 and 3 mm compared to 2 and 4 mm for both composites.Conclusions:Internal gaps and hardness are affected by composite type and photoactivation. Despite the reduced values, hardness of silorane is not influenced by photoactivation or by depth. Internal gaps are dependent on the energy dose for both composites, with silorane showing lower internal gaps.

The influence of curing tip distance and storage time on the hardness of a composite was evaluated. Composite samples (Filtek Z250) were polymerized at different distances (5, 10, and 15 mm), compared with a control group (0 mm), and stored in distilled water at 37 ° C for 24 hours. The Knoop-hardness of top and bottom surfaces was assessed (25 g/30 s). Specimens were stored in distilled water for 6 and 12 months and were retested. Hardness was found to be negatively influenced by both curing tip distance and storage time. Despite similar values at 24 hours, differences in hardness values compared with the control group appeared over time. In comparing both surfaces, hardness proved to be greater at the top surface for all groups. Composites with similar initial hardness values can degrade very differently after water storage. The higher the photoactivation distance and storage time, the worse the mechanical property.

No abstract