The purpose of this study was to compare combinations of the four visible light irradiating appliances (Translux, Heliomat, Pluraflex HL 150, Omega) and the four visible light activated composite resins (Durafil, Heliosit, Plurafil-super, Silux) to de...
The purpose of this study was to compare combinations of the four visible light irradiating appliances (Translux, Heliomat, Pluraflex HL 150, Omega) and the four visible light activated composite resins (Durafil, Heliosit, Plurafil-super, Silux) to determine the depth of polymerization of each combination.
Twenty samples were made with Durafil, Five samples were polymerized for 20 seconds using Translux, five with Heliomat, five with Pluraflex HL 150, five with Omega. Twenty samples were made with Heliosit, twenty with Plurafil-super, and twenty samples with Silux. A 20-second polymerization time was applied with each of 4 visible light irradiating appliances to 5 samples of each material. Eighty samples were treated in a like manner, but polymerization was extended to 40 seconds.
Depth of polymerization were measured with caliper.
The results were as follows.
1) Of the two time exposures, 40-second exposure provided a significantly greater depth of polymerization than 20-second for each light with each material.
2) Durafill-Translux system showed minimum depth of polymerization, and Plurafil-Pluraflex system showed maximum depth of polymerization.
3) Visible light irradiating appliances were able to harden the resins cured by the visible lights of other makers' apparatuses.
4) In all circumstances, depth of polymerization was between 3.0∼3.8㎜.