ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Effect of different light-curing modes and curing times on degree of conversion and microhardness of three different bulk-fill composites: an in vitro study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of high-power light-curing modes on the mechanical and optical properties of no-cap bulk-fill resin composites.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Optimizing Dental Resin-Based Composite Polymerization with Distance and Exposure Variables: Preliminary Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Narrative Review of the Material Properties, Clinical Efficacy, and Developmental Prospects of Bulk-Fill Resin-Based Composites.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis in vitro study aims to compare the effect of different light curing modes and curing times on the degree of conversion (DC) and microhardness (MH) of three different bulk fill composites at two different depths. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 224 cylindrical specimens (4 mm height, 6 mm diameter) were prepared using four composites: SDR Plus, Ever X Posterior (EXP), Beautifil Bulk Restorative (BBR), and Tetric N Ceram (TNC). Each material group (n = 56) was subdivided into four curing subgroups based on light-curing mode (Low Power or High Power) and exposure time (20-30 s). Following curing, all samples were stored at 37 °C for 24 h. From each subgroup, seven specimens were allocated for DC testing using Raman spectroscopy and seven for MH testing using the Vickers microhardness test.
resultsAll the materials achieved acceptable (> 80%) bottom-to-top Vickers hardness ratio in high power (HP) mode for both curing times. However, in the low power (LP) mode, EXP could not achieve this ratio at 20 s and BBR failed to achieve this ratio in both curing times. BBR could not achieve an acceptable DC (> 55%) in both curing modes and both curing times. EXP did not demonstrate acceptable DC in LP mode at 20 s curing time, while SDR showed acceptable DC in both curing modes and both curing times.
conclusionCompliance with manufacturers' instructions yielded acceptable outcomes in most cases. Each bulk fill material has different requirements pertaining to curing intensity and time to achieve desirable microhardness and degree of conversion. Clinicians should be aware of the curing protocol for the specific bulk fill materials. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: BBR consistently exhibited low degrees of conversion, even when the applied energy density exceeded the manufacturer's recommended levels. Further research is warranted to establish optimized curing protocols for giomer-based composites and to investigate the long-term impact of the degree of conversion on the mechanical properties and clinical durability of these restorations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40892080What 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.