Showing papers by "Ario Santini published in 2014"
TL;DR: It is strongly suggested that manufacturers of resin-based orthodontic materials test report whether or not dual peak LCUs should be used with their materials.
Abstract: Aim: To evaluate the degree of conversion (DC) of orthodontic adhesives (RBOAs) cured with dual peak or single peak light-emitting diode (LED) light-curing units (LCUs). Materials and methods: Standardized samples of RBOAs, APCPlus, Opal® Bond® and LightBondTM were prepared (n = 3) and cured with one of two dual peak LCUs (bluephase® G2-Ivoclar-Vivadent or Valo-Ultradent) or a single peak control (bluephase® Ivoclar-Vivadent). The DC was determined using micro-Raman spectroscopy. The presence or absence of initiators other than camphorquinone was confirmed by high-performance liquid chromatography and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Data were analysed using general linear model in Minitab 15 (Minitab Inc., State College, PA, USA). Results: There was no significant difference in DC between APCPlus, and Opal® Bond (confidence interval: −3·89– to 2·48); significant difference between APCPlus and LightBondTM (−18·55 to −12·18) and Opal® Bond and LightbondTM (−17·85 to −11·48); no significant differen...
8 citations
TL;DR: Interincisal mouth opening, location of the cavity and operator experience affected the total energy delivered to cavities in a simulated clinical environment.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Curing of resin-based composites depends on the delivery of adequate total energy, which may be operator dependent. Aim To determine the effect of interincisal opening, cavity location and operator experience on the total energy delivered to simulated cavity preparation sites. DESIGN Three cohorts were included: junior dental nurses, senior dental nurses and qualified dentists (N=5, each cohort). Each operator (participant) followed the same procedure and light-cured two simulated restorations in a MARC patient simulator using a Demi light-curing unit for 20 seconds in each of the following situations: left upper second molar (UL7), interincisal opening at both 25 mm and 45 mm; upper central incisor (UR1), interincisal opening at 45mm. The light energy delivered by each operator in each situation was recorded. Five readings for each operator were taken at each interincisal distance. Statistical comparisons of delivered energy (J/cm2) between interincisal openings, location and groups in the total energy delivered were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test: alpha = 0.05. RESULTS Less total energy was delivered to the posterior cavity at 25mm (12.0 +/- 5.3 J/cm2) than at 45mm (16.9 +/- 5.6 J/cm2) by all operators (P 0.05) but there was a significant difference in the total energy delivered between senior nurses (20.1 +/- 7.8 J/cm2) and junior nurses (17.5 +/- 7.6 J/cm2) and between senior nurses and qualified dentists (16.6 +/- 8.7 J/cm2) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Interincisal mouth opening, location of the cavity and operator experience affected the total energy delivered to cavities in a simulated clinical environment.
5 citations