ArticleClinical oral investigations2016
Effect of various light curing times on the elution of composite components.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analytical analysis on components released from resin-based dental materials.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Review
- The effects of extended curing time and radiant energy on microhardness and temperature rise of conventional and bulk-fill resin composites.Clinical oral investigations · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPolymerization of resin-based composites (RBCs) is incomplete. The aim of the present study was to determine whether a longer curing time than recommended by the manufacturer influences the amount of released composite components of RBCs. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe composites Clearfil AP-X and els extra low shrinkage were polymerized for six different curing times: 4, 10, 20, 40, 100, and 200 s. Light curing time recommended by the manufacturer for both composites is 20 s. Subsequently, samples were eluted in methanol and water for 1, 3, and 7 days and analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS).
resultsFor Clearfil AP-X ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), diethylene glycol dimethacrylate (DEGDMA), triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (HMBP), camphorquinone (CQ) and 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol (BHT) were detected in methanol. In the aqueous eluate, only TEGDMA was detected. In els extra low shrinkage, HMBP, BHT, and CQ were detected in methanol.
conclusionIncreasing the curing time compared to recommendation of the manufacturer reduces the release of most composite components. This could result in less exposure to human due to these substances. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Methacrylates are classified as potential allergens. An increasing number of dentists and patients show allergic reaction to methacrylates. Therefore, a reduced elution of composite components is an advantage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.