A comparison of hardness and abrasion resistance of two sealant materials after polymerization from different distances by different light sources

Abstract

BACKGROUND The efficacy of sealants to aid in the prevention of pit and fissure caries is well documented. In order for the sealants to be effective, they must be placed properly and retained for as long as possible. Clinicians must be aware that the proper placement of sealants is technique-sensitive and must be well controlled in order to achieve the best results. This study aims to determine if certain variables have an effect on curing of the sealant material to a degree that would compromise its integrity, strength, and longevity. METHODS AND MATERIALS Two commonly used sealant materials Ultraseal XT (Ultradent Products Inc., South Jordan, UT) and Delton (Dentsply International, Woodbridge, Ontario, Canada) were chosen and tested for microhardness and abrasion resistance after they were polymerized. This study did not focus on the materials themselves, but rather the technique by which they were polymerized and what effect this had on the materials. Three separate light sources, a traditional halogen light (QHL 75, Dentsply International, Woodbridge, Ontario, Canada), and two newer LED lights (Ultralume LED, Ultradent Products Inc., South Jordan, UT; and 3M Freelight LED, 3M Corp, St Paul, MN) were used in this study. The materials were then cured with each light at each of three different distances: contact (0.5 mm), 2 mm, and 10 mm. The effects of light source variation and distance from the material at the time of polymerization was then evaluated for any significance to sealant placement technique. Specimens were tested for each variable combination of sealant material, light source, and distance between the two while curing. Six samples were tested for each variable grouping for abrasion resistance, and four separate san1ples were tested fron1 the san1e grouping for Knoop hardness. The results were analyzed for significance to determine if certain techniques are or could be beneficial or damaging to the quality of care provided by today's practitioners. RESULTS It was found that materials and light sources varied in combination and with different techniques (e.g., distance). In general, the top surface polymerized best when cured at a distance of 2 mm to 10 mm, while the bottom surface polymerized best at a distance of 0.5 mm. The halogen light consistently outperformed the two LED lights, with the 3M LED consistently producing the worst results. CONCLUSIONS The halogen curing light used in this study outperformed the LED lights in almost every category, despite the LED light manufacturer's claims of equality. For more reliable polymerization, the halogen light should be used. SIGNIFICANCE The practitioner must be aware of the material that he/she is using and how the chosen light source polymerizes that material. Manufacturers' claims and recommendations cannot be trusted to accurately produce the best results with every product on the market today, sometimes not even with the manufacturers' own products. It is crucial for practitioners to be well versed and knowledgeable about the products that they use, based on current research and not manufacturers' claims.