ArticlePeerJ2024
Effect of duration and infection control barriers of light curing unit on hardness of Bulk Fill composite resin.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to investigate the impact of the duration of light curing unit (LCU) usage and the use of infection control barriers on the hardness of Bulk Fill composite resin after curing. The hypotheses were that extended usage of the LCU would not reduces its output power and resin hardness, and that the presence of polyethylene film barriers exacerbates the reduction in resin hardness. Methods: Based on the absence or presence of polyethylene film (PE) and the number of layers used, a 3M LED curing light (EliparTM DeepCure-S; 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) was divided into three groups: PE0, PE1, and PE3. The curing light was used 30 times daily for 20 s per exposure, at frequencies of 0, 6, and 12 months. Maximum output power tests were conducted for each group of curing lights. Custom-made plastic modules were used to stack Bulk Fill composite resin (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative; 3M ESPE) to a thickness of 4 mm. Each group of curing lights was used to cure the modules in a direct contact manner for 20 s. Vickers hardness measurements were taken at the top and bottom surfaces of the resin specimens using a digital microhardness tester. A one-way or two-way ANOVA analyzed the power of LCUs, Vickers hardness of Bulk Fill composite resin, and hardness decrease percentage across groups. Pairwise comparisons used the Tukey test (α = 0.05). Results: As the duration of usage increased, both the power of the curing light and the hardness of the resin significantly decreased. Significant differences were observed in power and resin hardness among the PE0, PE1, and PE3 groups. When the duration of usage was 6 months or less, only multi-layered PE films led to a significant increase in the percentage decrease of hardness of cured resin from top to bottom. However, at 12 months, both single-layer and multi-layered PE films resulted in a significant increase in the percentage decrease of hardness of cured resin from top to bottom. Conclusion: The output power of the light curing unit decreases with prolonged usage, thereby failing to meet the curing requirements of Bulk Fill composite resin. The use of single-layer PE as an infection control barrier is recommended.
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.