Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the microhardness of five different resin composites at different irradiation distances (2 mm and 9 mm) by using three light curing units (quartz tungsten halogen, light emitting diodes and plasma arc). METHODS: A total of 210 disc-shaped samples (2 mm height and 6 mm diameter) were prepared from different resin composites (Simile, Aelite Aesthetic Enamel, Clearfil AP-X, Grandio caps and Filtek Z250). Photoactivation was performed by using quartz tungsten halogen, light emitting diode and plasma arc curing units at two irradiation distances (2 mm and 9 mm). Then the samples (n=7/per group) were stored dry in dark at 37°C for 24 h. The Vickers hardness test was performed on the resin composite layer with a microhardness tester (Shimadzu HMV). Data were statistically analyzed using nonparametric Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed that the resin composite groups, the type of the light curing units and the irradiation distances have significant effects on the microhardness values (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Light curing unit and irradiation distance are important factors to be considered for obtaining adequate microhardness of different resin composite groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cekic‐Nagas et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: