Comparative depths of cure among various curing light types and methods

Abstract

This study evaluated the depth of cure associated with commercial LEDs (light-emitting diodes) (Elipar FreeLight [FL], 3M-ESPE; GC e-Light [EL], GC), high intensity (Elipar TriLight [TL], 3M-ESPE) and very high intensity (Astralis 10 [AS], Ivoclar Vivadent) Quartz Tungsten Halogen (QTH) curing lights. Depth of cure of the various lights/curing modes were compared to a conventional QTH light (Max [Mx], Dentsply-Caulk). Ten exposure regimens were investigated: FL1 - 400 mW/cm2 [40 seconds]; FL2 - 0-400 mW/cm2 [12 seconds] --> 400 mW/cm2 [28 seconds]; EL1 - 750 mW/cm2 [10 pulses x 2 seconds], EL2 - 350 mW/cm2 [40 seconds]; EL3 - 600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds]; EL4 - 0 - 600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds] --> 600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds]; TL1 - 800 mW/cm2 [40 seconds]; TL2 - 100- 800 mW/cm2 [15 seconds] --> 800 mW/cm2 [25 seconds]; AS1 - 1200 mW/cm2 [10 seconds]; MX - 400 mW/cm2 [40 seconds]. Depth of cure was determined by penetration, scraping and microhardness techniques. The results were analyzed using one-way ANOVA/Scheffe's post-hoc test and Pearson's correlation at significance level 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. All light curing regimens met the ISO depth of cure requirement of 1.5 mm with the exception of EL1-EL3 with the microhardness technique. Curing with most modes of EL resulted in significantly lower depths of cure than the control [MX]. No significant difference in depth of cure was observed among the control and the two modes of FL. Curing with TL1 resulted in significantly greater depth of cure compared to MX with all testing techniques. No significant difference in depth of cure was observed between the control and AS1 for all testing techniques except for the penetration technique. The depth of composite cure is light unit and exposure mode dependent. Scraping and penetration techniques were found to correlate well but tend to overestimate depth of cure compared to microhardness.