To evaluate the depth of cure (DOC) of ten contemporary resin-based composites (RBCs), light-cured using different LCUs and exposure times. The power, radiant emittance, irradiance, radiant exposure (RE), and beam profiles from a laser (M, Monet), a multi-peak (V, Valo Grand), and single-peak (S, SmartLite Pro) LCU were measured. The DOC was measured using a 6-mm diameter metal mold and a solvent dissolution method to remove the uncured RBC. The length of the remaining RBC was divided by 2. The exposure times were: 1 s and 3 s for M, 10 s and 20 s for V, and 10 s and 20 s for S. Data were analyzed using: Bland-Altman distribution, Pearson's Correlation, and an artificial neural network (ANN) to establish the relative importance of the factors on the DOC (α=0.05; β=0.2). Significant differences were found in the DOC achieved by the different LCUs and composites. The laser LCU emitted the highest power, radiant emittance is used above and in the tables and delivered the highest irradiance. However, this LCU used for 1 s delivered the lowest RE and produced the shortest DOC in all ten RBCs. The ANN demonstrated that the RE is the most critical factor for the DOC. Bland-Altman comparisons showed that the DOCs achieved with the laser LCU used for 1 s were between 17 and 34% shorter than the other conditions. Although the laser LCU cured all 10 RBCs when used for 1 s, it produced the shallowest DOC, and some RBCs did not achieve their minimum DOC threshold. The RE and not the irradiance was the most important factor in determining the DOC of these 10 RBCs. Despite delivering high power and irradiance, the laser used for l s delivered a lower radiant exposure than the conventional LCUs used for 10 s. This resulted in a shorter DOC.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the exposure reciprocity law of a multi-wave light-emitting diode (LED) on the light transmittance (LT), depth of cure (DOC) and degree of conversion in-depth (DC) of a bulk fill composite. A bulk fill composite (EvoCeram® bulk fill, Ivoclar Vivadent) was photoactivated using the multi-wave LED (VALO™ Cordless, Ultradent). The LED was previously characterized using a spectrophotometer to standardize the time of exposure when using the Standard or Xtra-Power modes with the same radiant exposure of 20J/cm2. LT was evaluated through samples of the bulk fill composite every millimeter till 4 mm in-depth. DOC was evaluated according to the ISO 4049. DC of the central longitudinal cross-section from each sample of the DOC test was mapped using FT-NIR microscopy. Data were statistically analyzed according to the experimental design (α=0.05; ß=0.2). The radiant exposure in the violet wavelength range for Standard and Xtra-Power was 4.5 and 5.0 J/cm2, respectively; for the blue wavelength range the radiant exposure for Standard and Xtra-Power was 15.5 and 15.0 J/cm2, respectively. There was no statistical difference in the DOC using Standard or Xtra-Power light-curing modes, but the DOC was lower than the claimed by the manufacturer (4 mm). The DC was not significantly affected by the light-curing mode up to 4 mm in depth (p>0.05). According to exposure reciprocity law, the reduction in exposure time using the same radiant exposure did not affect the depth of cure of the bulk fill composite.

The objective of this study was to observe patients’ satisfaction with their in-service direct anterior dental restorations and to compare it with clinical evaluation using FDI (Federation Dental International) criteria. Patients scored their own anterior dental restorations regarding satisfaction (satisfactory /dissatisfactory). If dissatisfaction was mentioned, then, they would be interviewed about the complaint. In the same session, the dental restorations were clinically evaluated by two dentists using FDI criteria (1-5 score) concerning esthetic, functional, and biological domains. Descriptive statistics were used for frequencies of scores attributed by patients and clinicians. In order to compare patients’ to clinicians’ frequencies, the Chi-square test was applied (p ≤ 0.05). A total of 106 restorations were evaluated by patients and clinicians. Patients reported 52.8% of restorations satisfactory and 47.8% dissatisfactory. Overall, clinicians reported the same restorations as 82,3% satisfactory and 17,6% dissatisfactory. Patients’ most frequent complaints referred to color, followed by anatomical form, fracture of material and retention, and approximal anatomical form. Comparing patients’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction rates to clinicians’ evaluation per criteria, there was no difference regarding esthetics. The frequency of dissatisfactory restorations by clinicians was significantly lower when functional and biological properties were compared with patients’ opinions. Direct anterior dental restorations were more frequently reported as satisfactory by patients and clinicians, being the main complaints related to esthetic issues. When clinicians and patients’ evaluations were compared, it was observed that the frequencies of satisfactory restoration by patients and clinicians were similar regarding esthetic properties, and significantly different regarding functional and biological properties.