Effect of a multi-layer infection control barrier on the micro-hardness of a composite resin

Aims:This study evaluated effect of infection control barriers on light intensity (LI) of light-curing unit (LCU) and microhardness of composite.Materials and Methods:Four different disposable barriers (n = 30) were tested against the control. LI for each barrier was measured with Lux meter. One hundred and fifty Teflon molds were equally divided into five groups of thirty each. Composite was filled in bulk in these molds and cured without and with barrier. Microhardness was evaluated on top and bottom surface of composite specimen with microhardness testing machine and hardness ratio (HR) was derived.Statistical Analysis Used:One-way analysis of variance, Tukey's honestly significant difference test, and paired t-test using SPSS version 18 software.Results:All barriers had significantly reduced the baseline LI of LCU (P < 0.0001), but only Cure Elastic Steri-Shield and latex cut glove pieces (LCGP) significantly reduced the microhardness of the composite (P < 0.05). However, HR determined inadequate curing only with LCGP.Conclusions:Although entire tested barrier significantly reduced the LI; none, except LCGP markedly affected the degree of cure of the composite.

show abstract

“…According to the CDC Guidelines for infection control, LGs of LCU should be sterile before using it in every next patient. [ 4 12 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[ 12 ] The HR should be more than 80% for composite resins that are adequately cured. [ 12 ] In the present study, all the barriers except LCGP showed HR more than 80% [ Table 3 ]. These results are in agreement with Sword et al ., who revealed only latex-based barriers significantly reduced curing of composite.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of effect of different disposable infection control barriers on light intensity of light-curing unit and microhardness of composite - An in vitro study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Usually, the degree of conversion of a composite resin is assessed by the hardness 27,28 and the hardness ratio, 29 the ratio between the upper and lower surface hardness values of a 2-mm-thick composite resin specimen. 8,30 However, in this study, the hardness of the lower surface of the DCRC was not measured because the thickness of the DCRC was controlled to 1.0 mm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early Hardness and Shear Bond Strength of Dual-cure Resin Cement Light Cured Through Resin Overlays With Different Dentin-layer Thicknesses

Chang

2014

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reducing the dentin-layer thickness while increasing the translucent-layer thickness of resin inlays increases the photopolymerization of dual-cure resin cement, thereby increasing the early bond strength of resin inlays to dentin. SUMMARYThe purpose of this study was to investigate whether dentin-layer thickness of resin overlays could affect the early hardness and shear bond strength of dual-cure resin cement (DCRC, RelyX ARC) after light curing with light curing units (LCUs) of various power densities: Optilux 360 (360), Elipar Freelight 2 (FL2), and Elipar S10 (S10). Resin overlays were fabricated using an indirect composite resin (Sinfony) with a dentin layer, an enamel layer, and a translucent layer of 0.5 mm thickness each (0.5-0.5-0.5) or of 0.2 mm, 0.5 mm, and 0.8 mm thickness (0.2-0.5-0.8), respectively. The DCRC was light cured for 40 seconds through the overlays, and surface hardness and shear bond strength to bovine dentin were tested 10 minutes after the start of light curing. Surface hardness was higher when the DCRC was light cured through the 0.2-0.5-0.8 combination than when the DCRC was light cured through the 0.5-0.5-0.5 combination with all LCUs. The ratio of upper surface hardness of DCRC light cured through resin overlays relative to the upper surface hardness of DCRC light cured directly was more than 90% only when the DCRC was light cured with S10 through the 0.2-0.5-0.8 combination. The shear bond strength value was higher when the DCRC was light cured with S10 through the 0.2-0.5-0.8 combination than when light cured with S10 through the 0.5-0.5-0.5 combination. This study indicates that reducing the dentin-layer thickness while increasing the translucent-layer thickness of

show abstract

“…A few authors explored cling films as a form of infection control barrier. 3 -7 , 10 , 11 With the considerations of the research involving efficacy of a cling film as an infection-control barrier and microbial contamination, 11 , 12 as well as two-layer infection control barrier, 13 our study will explore the effect on light output and clinical efficacy of the cling film and compare with sleeves.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Infection Control Barrier on Cross Contamination and its Effect on the Intensity Variation

Murugeshappa¹,

Math²,

Kalra³

et al. 2019

World Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To compare and assess the level of infection control provided by a cling film against a sleeve and their impact on the light intensity level of dental light-emitting diode (LED) light-curing units (LCUs). Materials and methods: A sleeve and a cling film of proprietary brands were compared on their reduction of light output and bacterial colonies on agar plates. Including a control group, 120 samples of analog radiometer readings were obtained. A total of 90 samples, including 10 each for positive and negative controls, were obtained in a laboratory setting via swabbing of light-guiding tips placed intraorally. These swabbings were inoculated on 5% sheep blood agar in a biological cabinet and cultured for 48 hours at 37°C; the inoculated surfaces were photographed and analyzed for area of coverage by bacterial colonies. The data obtained were subjected to ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: There is neither statistically significant reduction in output nor difference in output between either barriers (p > 0.05). There is statistically significant reduction in bacterial colonies on the inoculated surface by both barriers compared to no barrier (p < 0.01), but there is no statistically significant difference between the two barriers (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Both barriers do not significantly affect light output and are equally efficacious as cross-contamination barriers, and the choice lies with the operator. Clinical significance: Use of barriers is very important to prevent cross-infection control. The results of our study help the clinician select appropriate measures to prevent cross infection while using LCUs across the patients.

show abstract

Effect of a multi-layer infection control barrier on the micro-hardness of a composite resin

Cited by 10 publications

References 21 publications

Evaluation of effect of different disposable infection control barriers on light intensity of light-curing unit and microhardness of composite - An in vitro study

Evaluation of effect of different disposable infection control barriers on light intensity of light-curing unit and microhardness of composite - An in vitro study

Early Hardness and Shear Bond Strength of Dual-cure Resin Cement Light Cured Through Resin Overlays With Different Dentin-layer Thicknesses

Efficacy of Infection Control Barrier on Cross Contamination and its Effect on the Intensity Variation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About