Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In Vitro Study Evaluates Curing Techniques' Impact on Microleakage and Microhardness of Dental Composites, Suggesting Optimal Protocols.
Adequate polymerization of resin-based composites is essential for marginal sealing and mechanical performance. This study evaluated the effects of different light-curing protocols on gingival microleakage and microhardness of a high-viscosity bulk-fill composite, Filtek™ One Bulk Fill Restorative (3M ESPE; AUDMA, AFM, UDMA, 1,12-dodecane-DMA; silica/zirconia fillers, 76.5 wt%, 58.4 vol%) and conventional nanohybrid composite, Filtek™ Z250 XT Universal Restorative (3M ESPE; Bis-EMA, UDMA; zirconia/silica fillers, 82 wt%, 68 vol%). Forty-eight extracted human second premolars and 48 cylindrical specimens were used for microleakage and Vickers microhardness testing, respectively. Specimens were cured using an O-Star LED unit in turbo mode (2700–3000 mW/cm2, 3 s) or soft-start mode (0–1200 mW/cm2, 20 s) at 2 mm and 5 mm distances. Data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn’s tests (p < 0.05). Significant differences were found among groups. Soft-start curing at 2 mm produced the lowest microleakage, whereas turbo curing at 5 mm produced the highest. The conventional composite exhibited higher top and bottom microhardness values. Bottom-to-top hardness ratios were below 80% in most groups, except for the conventional composite cured with soft-start mode. Based on our findings, soft-start curing at short distances provides favorable outcomes, while turbo curing at 5 mm is not recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmed et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: