Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

[Composite curing with new LED equipment].

Adrian Lussi1, Brigitte Zimmerli, Thomas Aregger

  • 1Universität Bern, Klinik für Zahnerhaltung, Präventiv- und Kinderzahnmedizin. adrian.lussi@zmk.unibe.ch

Schweizer Monatsschrift Fur Zahnmedizin = Revue Mensuelle Suisse D'Odonto-Stomatologie = Rivista Mensile Svizzera Di Odontologia E Stomatologia
|January 18, 2006
PubMed
Summary

This study compared how different light-curing units (LCUs) affect the hardness of dental composites under various conditions. Researchers tested four LCUs with exposure times of 20 and 40 seconds, with and without a ceramic barrier. They found that a 20-second exposure is enough for a 2 mm composite layer without barriers, but 40 seconds is needed on each side when curing through ceramic. The hardest part of the composite was typically found around 200 microm from the top. The study also showed that all LCUs produced similar results despite differences in technology. These findings help dentists choose the right curing times based on material and barrier conditions.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Erosive tooth wear and its associated factors by tooth surfaces among a group of Finnish adults: a pilot study.

Acta odontologica Scandinavica·2026
Same author

BEWE 2.0: Basic erosive tooth wear examination revisited: Introducing an additional level for more severe erosive tooth wear.

Journal of dentistry·2026
Same author

Protective Effect of Hemoglobin Treatment with Sodium Trimetaphosphate on Enamel Erosion: in vitro study.

Brazilian dental journal·2025
Same author

A new frontier in oral care with proteins and peptide infused in orally disintegrating film to prevent early dental erosion in vivo.

Journal of dentistry·2025
Same author

Reliability of an Artificial Intelligence Software in the Detection of Approximal Caries Lesions Using Bitewing Radiographs.

Caries research·2025
Same author

Synergistic effect of Maquiberry cystatin, sodium fluoride and stannous chloride for the prevention of initial dental erosion in vitro.

Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB·2025

Area of Science:

  • Dental materials science
  • Polymerization kinetics in restorative dentistry
  • Light-curing unit efficacy research

Background:

Dental restorations require precise polymerization to ensure material stability and longevity. Prior research has shown that light-curing units (LCUs) influence composite hardness, but gaps remain in understanding how variables like exposure time and material barriers affect outcomes. Established knowledge includes the role of light intensity and wavelength in initiating polymerization. However, no prior work had resolved how ceramic barriers or curing distances modify these effects. This gap motivated a detailed analysis of curing profiles under controlled conditions. Existing studies often focus on single variables, but few integrate multiple factors like exposure duration, distance, and barrier materials. The need for a systematic comparison of LCUs under varied conditions remains unmet. This paper's contribution lies in its structured approach to evaluating polymerization under clinically relevant scenarios. By examining distance, time, and barrier effects, it addresses a critical need in optimizing composite curing protocols.

Keywords:
dental composite curingLED curing unitspolymerization depthKnoop hardness testing

Frequently Asked Questions

The authors propose that a 20-second exposure is sufficient for a 2 mm increment without ceramic barriers.

Curing through a 3 mm ceramic disk requires 40 seconds of exposure from each side.

To determine the total degree of polymerization by calculating the area under the hardness curve.

It revealed significant associations between distance, curing time, and LCU type with polymerization (p < 0.001).

Related Experiment Videos

Purpose Of The Study:

This study aimed to evaluate how different light-curing units (LCUs) affect composite polymerization under varied conditions. The specific problem addressed is the lack of comprehensive data on how exposure time, distance, and ceramic barriers influence composite hardness. The motivation stems from clinical needs to optimize curing protocols for dental composites. The study tested four LCUs: Astralis 10, Bluephase, Elipar Freelight 2, and SmartLite. It also examined curing times of 20 and 40 seconds, with and without a ceramic barrier. The goal was to determine how these variables interact to affect the degree of polymerization. By measuring hardness at multiple depths, the study sought to identify optimal curing parameters. This approach allows for a detailed understanding of how each variable contributes to the final outcome. The findings aim to inform best practices for using LCUs in dental restorations.

Main Methods:

The study used plexiglass cubes with 4 mm diameter and 8 mm depth cavities. Four LCUs were tested: Astralis 10, Bluephase, Elipar Freelight 2, and SmartLite. Each LCU was evaluated under two exposure times: 20 and 40 seconds. Polymerization was tested directly on the composite or through a 3 mm thick ceramic disk. The composite Tetric Ceram (A3) was inserted in one batch and incubated for seven days. After incubation, the cubes were sectioned into halves and polished. Knoop microhardness was measured at multiple depths from the occlusal surface. The total degree of polymerization was calculated using the area under the hardness curve. Multiple linear regression was used to assess the significance of variables like distance, time, and LCU type.

Main Results:

Multiple linear regression showed that distance, curing time, and LCU type significantly influenced polymerization (p < 0.001). All LCUs produced a similar cure profile despite differences in technology. The hardest composite was found around 200 microm from the occlusal surface. Hardness values were consistent across LCUs for the same conditions. A 20-second exposure was sufficient for a 2 mm increment without ceramic barriers. Curing through ceramic required 40 seconds from each side. The study found no significant differences in cure profiles between LCUs. The area under the hardness curve provided a reliable measure of polymerization quality. These findings suggest that curing time adjustments are necessary when using barriers.

Conclusions:

The authors concluded that a 20-second exposure is sufficient for a 2 mm composite increment without ceramic barriers. Curing through ceramic requires 40 seconds from each side. The study found that distance, time, and LCU type significantly affect polymerization. The hardest composite was consistently found around 200 microm from the occlusal surface. All LCUs produced similar cure profiles despite technological differences. The findings suggest that exposure time adjustments are necessary when using barriers. The study supports the use of standardized curing protocols based on material and barrier conditions. These conclusions align with the observed data and do not extend beyond the authors' stated claims.

The composite Tetric Ceram (A3) was used in all tests.

The hardest composite was usually encountered around 200 microm from the occlusal surface.