Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Although properties of laboratory-polymerized composite materials are influenced by the type of polymerizing unit, little information is available regarding the comparison between use of a high-intensity light source and application of secondary heat treatment.
PURPOSE
This study examined properties of a prosthetic veneering composite polymerized with 3 polymerizing systems to evaluate the effects of varying polymerization modes on hardness, solubility, and depth of cure.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A composite material designed for a prosthetic veneer (Conquest Crown and Bridge) was polymerized using 3 methods: (1) exposure in the proprietary photopolymerizing unit with 2 halogen lamps (Cure-Lite Plus), followed by heating in an oven (Conquest Automatic Curing Unit); (2) exposure in a photopolymerizing unit with a xenon stroboscopic light source (Dentacolor XS); and (3) exposure in a photopolymerizing unit with 2 metal halide lamps (Hyper LII). Knoop hardness, water solubility, and depth of cure were determined for groups of 5 specimens, according to standardized testing methods. Data were compared using analysis of variance and the Duncan new multiple range test (P <.05).
RESULT
The hardness number generated with the metal halide unit was statistically greater than those produced by the other 2 methods, and material component released into water was minimal when the material was exposed with the metal halide unit (P <.05). Among the 3 photopolymerizing units, the metal halide unit consistently exhibited the greatest depth of cure.
CONCLUSION
Certain properties generated with the use of the high-intensity polymerizing unit exceeded those obtained from a proprietary system that requires a postheat treatment.
Collapse