Effect of reduced exposure times on the microhardness of nanocomposites polymerized by QTH and second-generation LED...

This study investigated the effectiveness of polymerization of various curing regimes on five nanocomposite restorative materials—Z350, Grandio, Clearfil Majesty Esthetic, Ice and Tetric EvoCeram—by utilizing microhardness measurements. Five (n=5) disc-shaped specimens of each material were subjected to one of three curing regimes: curing with a halogen light for 20 seconds, curing with an LED light for 20 seconds and curing with an LED light for 10 seconds. Immediately following curing, hardness measurements were made with a Vickers indenter at five different locations on both the top and bottom surfaces of each disc. The mean for each surface was calculated. Data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey HSD (α=0.05). The results demonstrated that among the Z350 composite samples, top and bottom microhardness values showed no statistical differences when cured with the halogen 20 second or LED 20 second regimes (p>0.05). Comparison of the top and bottom values of discs cured with the LED 10 second regime demonstrated significant differences (p<0.0001). Grandio samples cured with the halogen 20 second regime showed no statistical differences between top and bottom microhardness values (p>0.05); however, the bottom values of Grandio discs cured with the LED 20 second and 10 second regimes were significantly lower when compared with top surface values (p=0.001 and p<0.0001, respectively). Clearfil Majesty Esthetic, Ice and Tetric Evo Ceram samples cured with the halogen 20 second regime produced significantly lower bottom microhardness values, while both LED regimes produced top and bottom surfaces that were statistically comparable. The conclusion may be drawn that LED 10 second curing regimes were insufficient to cure Z350 and Grandio, while they were adequate for curing Clearfil Majesty Esthetic, Ice and Tetric EvoCeram.