Dental Materials
Volume 23, Issue 11 , Pages 1342-1348, November 2007

Influence of different light curing units on the cytotoxicity of various dental composites

  • Bernd W. Sigusch

      Affiliations

    • Department of Conservative Dentistry, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, An der Alten Post 4, Jena D-07743, Germany
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +49 3641 934581; fax: +49 3641 934582.
    • ,
  • Andrea Völpel

      Affiliations

    • Department of Conservative Dentistry, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, An der Alten Post 4, Jena D-07743, Germany
    • ,
  • Ingo Braun

      Affiliations

    • Department of Conservative Dentistry, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, An der Alten Post 4, Jena D-07743, Germany
    • ,
  • Alexander Uhl

      Affiliations

    • E.M.S., Electro Medical Systems SA, Chemin de la Vuarpillière 31, CH-1260 Nyon, Switzerland
    • ,
  • Klaus D. Jandt

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Materials Science and Technology, IMT, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Löbdergraben 32, Jena D-07743, Germany

Received 6 February 2006; received in revised form 2 November 2006; accepted 16 November 2006.

Abstract 

Objectives

To evaluate the dependence of the toxicity of various dental composites on the use of high- and low-power light curing units (LCUs).

Methods

The composites Filtek Z 250, Durafill VS, Solitaire 2 and Grandio were polymerized using different light densities from three LCUs, namely Heliolux II, Swiss Master Light (SML) and a prototype LED. The toxicity of polymerized samples was tested by exposing them to the cell culture medium up to 28 days. The extracts of the composites were collected daily and used for incubation in human gingival fibroblasts cultures.

Results

Slow, low-intensity curing using the LED or the Heliolux II showed similar characteristics for all four composites, regarding the cell viability rate of human gingival fibroblasts. After 1 day of storage suboptimal results could be observed for the SML/Durafill and optimal results for SML/Grandio combination (approximately 100% cell viability). In addition, the composite Solitaire the SML yielded significantly better results than the other LCUs (cell viability, p≤0.001: SML 60.5%, Heliolux 44.5%, LED 44.2%). Furthermore, the combination of the SML with Z 250 composite showed, after the first day and up to day 28, statistically significantly higher cell viability rates than the combination with the LED or Heliolux II.

Significance

This study shows that the combination of a high power LCU with some composites positively influences the HGF cell viability effected by the investigated composite extracts. Moreover, there is further indication that a reduction of composite toxicity is possible if the curing mode is adapted to the used composite.

Keywords: Cytotoxicity, Dental composites, Light-curing

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0109-5641(06)00309-5

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2006.11.013

Dental Materials
Volume 23, Issue 11 , Pages 1342-1348, November 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution