No abstract

Developing of simplified dental adhesive systems has been one of the mayor progress of the dental adhesive technology over the last years. Main research has been conducted in order to reduce clinical steps and therefore reducing the technical sensitivity and making the restorative procedure simpler and faster. One-bottle adhesive systems using the

No abstract

SUMMARY Objective: To evaluate the influence of different protective barriers as a function of the photoactivation distances on the radiant exposure of several light-curing units (LCU). The influence of the protective barriers on the degree of conversion of an adhesive resin was also evaluated. Methods: Five LCUs were evaluated: Valo Cordless— used in standard mode (Ultradent, South Jordan, USA); Radii-cal—used in continuous mode (SDI, Bayswater, AU); Emitter D—used in continuous mode (Schuster, Santa Maria, BR); Bluephase N— used in high-intensity mode (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, LI); and Rainbow Curing Light—used in continuous mode (Axdent, Guangdong, CN). For each LCU, radiant exposure was measured with a spectrometer (MARC Resin Calibrator) using three different protective barriers (low-density polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, or Radii-cal barrier sleeves) and five photoactivation distances (0, 2, 5, 10, and 20 mm). The degree of conversion of an adhesive resin (Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA) was measured through Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. The translucency parameter of protective barriers was measured with a spectrophotometer. For all statistical tests, a significance level of α = 0.05 was set. Results: For all LCUs tested, radiant exposure was found to be significantly influenced by both protective barriers and curing distance (p≤0.001). In general terms, all the protective barriers significantly decreased the radiant exposure. Radii-cal barrier sleeves were the protective barrier that most decreased the radiant exposure. Irrespective of the protective barrier used, none of the LCU equipment reached the required minimum radiant exposure of 16 J/cm2 at 10 mm of curing distance. The degree of conversion was not effected by either LCU or a protective barrier (p≥0.211). Conclusions: Protective barriers and photoactivation distance reduced the radiant exposure emitted by different LCUs.

Objective: of this study was to characterize and correlate the absorption spectra of three photoinitiators [camphorquinone (CQ), diphenyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide (TPO) and phenylbis (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)-phosphine oxide (BAPO)], using second or third-generation light curing units (LCU), and to evaluate the degree of conversion and the physical properties of an experimental resin adhesive.  Material and methods: Second-generation (Radii-cal® and Emitter D®) and third-generation (Valo® Cordless and Bluephase N®) LCU were assessed regarding spectrum and irradiance rate of emitted light. Also, the photoinitiators (CQ, TPO and BAPO) were characterized by a light absorption spectrum assessed by UV-Vis spectroscopy, degree of conversion and yellowing effect. Statistical analyzes considered two-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey test.  Results: BAPO presented higher reactivity compared to TPO. Regarding degree of conversion of the photoinitiators activated by different light-curing units, the Emitter D® device promoted a high degree of conversion. BAPO presented the highest yellowing effect values. Conclusions: The emission and absorption characteristics of the photoinitiators were different. The polymerization reaction activated by the second-generation light-curing unit was reduced when using an experimental resin with photoinitiator TPO, and the third-generation light-curing unit showed a higher polymerization potential regardless of the photoinitiator. Keywords Light-curing of dental adhesives;  Photoinitiators dental; Curing lights dental.