What Are the Advantages of Gel Shrinking Before Curing？

If you are looking for more details, kindly visit Gel Shrinking Before Curing.

Drying Rates of Acrylic Polymer Dispersion

On most containers of commercial paints, primers and coatings, it is common for the label to provide a specific timeframe for the product to be dry. &#;Dries in 2-4 hours under ideal conditions.&#; &#;Dries to the touch in 30-60 minutes.&#; &#;Allow to dry 4 hours before re-coating.&#; So why then doesn&#;t Golden Artist Colors list such information on most of its products? The answer is simple; our products are used in many different ways, on many different surfaces, and in a myriad of environmental settings. Therefore it is extremely difficult to offer a &#;guesstimate&#; without knowing more details about the application and taking into account the different needs at each stage of an artwork. Is this the priming layer before working in oils? Does the work need to be on a delivery truck in the morning? Are you going to heavily saturate the surface with washy layers of acrylics? Is this an exterior mural in Louisiana? This complexity causes us to pause whenever asked the question, &#;how long will it take to dry?&#;

While it is impossible to account for every aspect and provide absolute drying times, in this article we describe some of the factors surrounding the drying process, reveal recent test results and discuss how all this can impact a real world situation.

Drying Stages of Acrylic Polymer Dispersion

At the simplest and most schematic level, acrylics dry by evaporation of water and other &#;volatiles&#; from the paint film. As these leave, the acrylic solids move closer together until they come into contact with one another and form a film. These eventually compact together with enough force to squeeze out water and additives until it reaches coalescence. The cured film is now quite stable and doesn&#;t adversely react to moisture or subsequent paint layers.

In thinner applications and under ideal drying conditions, acrylics will appear to be dry within minutes or hours. Conversely, it is not uncommon for thickly applied paint films to take weeks or months to reach the same state. Although all acrylic paint films dry via the same mechanisms &#; water and co-solvents leaving &#; there are many factors at play during the process affecting the outcome, particularly the rate of drying. In fact, thick paint films may have several zones at different stages of drying, each with a varying degree of volatile content.

While over the years this process has been rather loosely defined, and some terms will mean different things to different people, the following is an attempt to represent the basic stages of the process (Figure 2).

Wet Paint &#; The product from the container remains so until it is applied to the palette or canvas. The paint still has its starting level of volatiles (water and co-solvents) that begin evacuating the film as it is applied to the substrate. Wet paint is still movable and can be manipulated easily by brush or knife, but it is becoming noticeably stiffer. The polymer particles are drawn closer together and when the paint is no longer uniformly workable, the wet paint stage is over.

Skinned Over &#; As the volatiles quickly begin leaving the paint film, the acrylic solids move closer together. Depending on the paint film thickness, the paint may go through several stages in very rapid succession. This particular one describes the moment when you can lightly touch the paint surface and enough of a skin has developed to where product doesn.t lift up when it is touched. As a paint film becomes skinned over, the permanent film structure has started.

Touch Dry &#; The touch dry stage is very closely related to the skinned over stage. A thin layer may move from wet paint, to skinned-over, to touch-dry within seconds! However, in the thicker films, there is usually a substantial enough skin to withstand some touching without it wrinkling or tearing. The skin grows continually as the volatiles escape, but there still remains a significant amount of additives underneath, especially on non absorbent substrates.

Dry to Handle/Solid State &#; At some point the paint film ceases to have any overly wet areas and the rate of weight loss slows down significantly. While artists may believe this is when their paint film is &#;dry&#;, it is not. Plenty of additives still need to come out. This would be a bad time to try and pack up or roll the painting for transportation, as the acrylics are very fragile at this stage. Since the films are only partially cured, adhesion and film integrity are not yet fully developed.

Cured/Coalesced &#; During the drying process the acrylic solids have moved into a closely packed arrangement (like some free-form Tetris game), causing the majority of volatiles to be pushed out in the process. In addition, the presence of film formation additives has softened these acrylic solids to allow them to deform around one another and eliminate any air gaps between the particles. The gaps between the solids once occupied with water and other volatiles are now eliminated, allowing for a hexagonal, honeycomb-like polymer network to form. This process is known as coalescence. It is only after sufficient coalescence has occurred that the paint film is stable, and the final physical and chemical properties develop.

One would assume that coalescence is the final stage of an acrylic paint film process. While this is largely true, acrylic films must incorporate a certain degree of hydrophilic, or water loving, additives in order to be compatible with water. This means they will inevitably hold onto some water even after they are seemingly dry. In addition, a level of incomplete coalescence causes acrylic films to be somewhat porous, leaving channels that run along the walls of the hexagonally deformed particles. These pores are then passageways for water to move in and out of the film.

Some evidence of this is seen in the graph (Figure 3), where it is apparent that there remains a relatively significant amount of volatiles in the film, even after an extended period of time. It is surprising how much film integrity has been achieved, when in fact, there is still 5-20% of the original level of volatiles still remaining. Acrylic films will continue to lose weight as well as gain weight, depending on the atmosphere they are in. Higher temperatures and increased air flow tend to drive off the moisture, while higher relative humidity encourages the film to hold onto moisture. This process will continue as the paint reacts with the environment, re-equilibrating to the moisture levels of the atmosphere. The process is quite slow to develop &#; especially in an ever-shifting climate such as New York &#; taking many more months to reach a point of stable equilibrium. As with any porous material, there will be a level of moisture that may never leave unless the humidity level is lowered long enough to draw the moisture out.

Setting up the Test

In order to learn more about the timing of the drying process of acrylics, a series of test parameters were defined to look at some manageable and influential drying factors, and identify them with key stages of drying. We realized that we could not test every factor. Since the testing was all done at the same time, we were able to rule out differences in temperature and humidity. Environmental factors are important, but would be impractical to try and control during this round of testing. Whatever the ambient conditions were, they were recorded. Air flow was limited to normal room traffic.

A minimum of three test samples were always created, and substrates that were inert to moisture retention (aluminum, Lexan, and polyester canvas) were chosen. One problem realized early on in the testing was that the most common artist supports are absorbent enough themselves to allow humidity to alter the substrate weight during testing. Cotton canvas absorbs and retains water. So does hardboard and paper. Within the chosen substrates, polyester canvas offered a more breathable surface, while the acrylic sheeting and aluminum panels offered more sealed surfaces. The goal was to see if sealed versus breathable surfaces would alter the drying process.

The actual batch information of both the Regular Gel (Gloss) and Heavy Body Titanium White selected for this test were recorded and used to calculate the actual solids levels which are critical for comparing the loss of volatiles during drying.

There were two rounds of testing conducted. One set started over a year ago, and a second series was observed for a 60 day cycle.

Film Thicknesses

Our Acrylic Dry Time Testing included a series of standard paint film thicknesses. We used the tools to decide the range of thickness and provide a realistic set of uniformly cast films. We chose 10 mil (about the thickness of a generously brushed application), 62.5 mil (1/16&#;), 125 mil (1/8&#;), and 250 mil (1/&#;) for this test.

Methods to Assess Drying Rates

1. Physically manipulate the paint layer during drying to note key stages. This is the most accessible way for artists to measure drying as well (Figure 4). Touching a paint film is the best way to determine how dry it is.
2. Visually inspect the layer for signs of skinning and clearing up. The surface shrinks and changes as it dries. Gels start milky white and then become translucent and hazy on their way towards clarity. Optical changes indicate crucial points in the drying cycle.
3. Weighing the test panel. Most artists are not able to weigh their artwork during the painting process. Even if they did, the information doesn&#;t really mean too much unless you also know the actual solids level. By comparing the weight loss to the physical and visual results, an accurate picture of the drying process is revealed.

Test Results

As one can imagine, this kind of testing creates massive spreadsheets full of data. Each test is looked at individually and then compared with the others. One of the most important parts of the testing was to try and define the level of volatiles in relation to the degree of dryness of the paint films at each interval. We created a graph to help visualize this (Figure 5). This range is based upon comparing sample weight loss to physical and visual changes, and in reality most stages happen so rapidly that one stage blurs into the next. Thicker films give us a better understanding of this relationship, but these key points in the drying cycle are important to establish for the results to follow.

Rapid Drying Early

Across the board, with each test panel, most of the volatile loss happens early on in the drying cycle. The loss of water and co-solvents is facilitated by the lack of a paint skin, or at least not a very substantial one. One can see this rapid loss by looking at the graphs in Figure 5. What was interesting was seeing each film creating the same drying curve line as we plotted the weight loss. We noted thin paint films take about 3 days to reach a solid state. This doesn&#;t mean you can&#;t continue to apply paint or mediums, but rather a general time frame to wait before doing anything extreme, such as stretching the painting, or varnishing.

Substrate Influences Drying Rates

The impact of substrate on drying time was shown to be significant. The same product applied at the same thickness dries noticeably faster on a breathable substrate like canvas, which promotes two-way drying, when compared to a non-absorbent panel. Early on, the weight loss was similar, but as paint films began to develop a thicker skin on the surface, a pattern emerged showing the difference.

The testing shows that a more breathable substrate allows for two-way drying. The non-absorbent aluminum cards in almost every case showed significantly slower weight loss and slower clearing of the gels (Figure 6).

Film Thickness

Film thickness has always been recognized as a key factor in the drying rate of acrylics. 10 mil films of gels and Heavy Body Acrylics become touch dry in minutes. The paint film dries uniformly and follows the standard paint drying process. But when thicker layers are applied, the key difference is the development of a paint skin that becomes more substantial during drying until the entire paint film coalesces (Figure 7). This paint skin dramatically impedes the movement of volatiles out of the film.

We verify this by how quickly the Regular Gel (Gloss) is able to clear up, and there is direct evidence to support this by comparing it to the rate of weight loss. We further were able to confirm this against the physical manipulation data. In every case, thinner films dry faster than a thicker counterpart regardless of product or substrate.

Product Differences

Due to the large scope of this testing, the number of products tested was limited. Heavy Body Titanium White and Regular Gel (Gloss) provided a reasonable range of product differences. We do recognize various kinds of pigments, paint formulations and other products are going to behave differently than these two products. Aside from the acrylic polymer solids, products may contain a large range of additional solids, including many kinds of pigments, fillers, grits and matting agents, whereas gels tend to only have the acrylic binder as the solids unless it contains matting solids.

Are you interested in learning more about Oem Gel Polish Set? Contact us today to secure an expert consultation!

When comparing Titanium White to Regular Gel, there were not many differences between them early on, across the various thicknesses and substrates. The Titanium White does seem to take an early lead regarding weight loss, and it maintained this edge for the 60 day testing cycle. In several test groups the final level of volatiles left in the film was between 7 and 15% (Figure 8).

Manipulation Results

We manipulated (with toothpicks and later pencils) the surface of both the gel and white paint for several days until there wasn&#;t a discernible difference in how the acrylic responded to being prodded (Figure 4). We found that thinner films dried so quickly it was hard to measure the various changes that occurred, so the thicker . applications provided the most recordable data.

Products became noticeably thicker and began to skin over during the first day of testing. In general, acrylic layers begin changing very quickly during their first day of drying. Within several hours, a &#;crust&#; developed on the Titanium White similar to the crust on Brie (soft, aged cheese), whereas the gel skin was more rubbery, pulling and stretching when probed.

By the second day, there was a point where it was difficult to use toothpicks anymore. The skins were thick and unyielding, making it necessary to switch to using pencils to check dryness. Gentle prodding soon gave way to more aggressive poking. By the end of the second week, the films were strong enough to break pencil leads.

Small Versus Large Area Size

Every so often when doing this kind of research the testing data throws a curve ball. The standard assumption would be that a smaller acrylic paint film will dry faster than a larger one. Right? Not so fast. We compared a 2&#; circle of product to a 12&#; circle of product, both on panel. In both the Regular Gel (Gloss) and Heavy Body Titanium White samples, the larger circle lost weight faster than its smaller diameter counterpart. The differences may not be substantial, but there was enough of a difference to make us wonder why this happened.

Zonal Drying

While more testing needs to be conducted to further understand these results, one theory is that on a large, thick layer of paint or gel, the initial product skins over just like the smaller 2. circle, but the overall thickness of this skin varies from center to edge (Figure 9). It may be that the center area of the paint skin is thinner because of the rush of volatiles to the center during drying caused by the edges drying. The outer edge skins first and is quickly tighter making it more difficult for the water to pass through the film. Water takes the easiest route to escape from a material. In this case, water flows inward towards the center, and results in the water being able to leave the film at a slightly faster rate than a thinner, more uniformly skinned paint layer will allow.

Summary

Many artists take advantage of the fast drying nature of acrylics. It is one of its most noted features, and although it can be slowed down with the use of retarders, the fast drying allows for a great range of techniques. However, when time is critical, many artists who have not thought about all of the factors early on, will face the issue of having to wait longer than desired before beginning the next phase of their painting process. If one paints thickly, then they must understand the importance of giving that generous layer time to dry. If faster drying is important, then take a good look at what can be changed to improve the drying time.

To summarize the test results, here are some key thoughts:

&#;Thin layers dry faster than thicker layers. It doesn&#;t mean you cannot end up with thick layers, but see if it&#;s possible to apply several thinner coats rather than one heavy layer.

&#;Breathable fabrics facilitate faster two-way drying. Panels certainly provide great stability, but using them means all of the volatiles can only leave the paint film one way, mostly through a thickening paint skin.

&#;Product selection may influence drying, but not enough to be overly concerned.

&#;The size of the painting is not a critical factor.

&#;Environmental factors are big influencers on drying. Temperature, humidity and air flow can be adjusted to control drying times.

Finally, it is important to note that while we isolated the drying time variables in this testing, in the studio, the artist&#;s ability to control as many as possible should result in faster overall drying times without causing potential issues. Thinly applied paint films on stretched canvas allowed to dry in a warm, dry space with good air flow are going to dry much faster than an impasto painting on panel in the basement. So even when you are in a hurry, take the time to factor as many variables into the drying time equations as possible in order to meet your needs.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the polymerization shrinkage and shrinkage stress of composites polymerized with a LED and a quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) light sources. The LED was used in a conventional mode (CM) and the QTH was used in both conventional and pulse-delay modes (PD). The composite resins used were Z100, A110, SureFil and Bisfil 2B (chemical-cured). Composite deformation upon polymerization was measured by the strain gauge method. The shrinkage stress was measured by photoelastic analysis. The polymerization shrinkage data were analyzed statistically using two-way ANOVA and Tukey test (p&#;0.05), and the stress data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p&#;0.05). Shrinkage and stress means of Bisfil 2B were statistically significant lower than those of Z100, A110 and SureFil. In general, the PD mode reduced the contraction and the stress values when compared to CM. LED generated the same stress as QTH in conventional mode. Regardless of the activation mode, SureFil produced lower contraction and stress values than the other light-cured resins. Conversely, Z100 and A110 produced the greatest contraction and stress values. As expected, the chemically cured resin generated lower shrinkage and stress than the light-cured resins. In conclusion, The PD mode effectively decreased contraction stress for Z100 and A110. Development of stress in light-cured resins depended on the shrinkage value.

Despite their popularity, the use of halogen light-curing units (LCUs) to polymerize dental composites has several setbacks 33 . The halogen bulbs, reflector, and filter degrade over time due to high operation temperatures and heat produced, resulting in a limited effective lifetime of about 40 to 100 hours 16 , 27 . Current LCUs using blue light emitting diodes (LEDs) have shown advantages, namely lower temperature, long lifetime, no filters, resistance to shock and vibration and narrow spectral output (440-490 nm) that falls within the camphoroquinone (CQ) absorption spectrum 27 , 33 , 35 , 38 . Because its is relatively new in dentistry, the effect of LED light on polymerization shrinkage and stress is not well reported in the dental literature. The aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in post-gel shrinkage and polymerization stress produced by halogen and LED LCUs for photocuring diferent composite resins. The second aim was to test the hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in conventional, pulse and chemical curing modes: and the last was to test the hypothesis that four commercially composite resins are equivalent among them.

Manufacturers have recommended high light intensity to render a higher degree of monomer conversion into polymer, thus improving the mechanical properties of composite resins. Unfortunately, the degree of conversion is always proportionally associated with shrinkage and a high rate of polymerization 2 , 9 . Clinically, the effect of postgel shrinkage and contraction stress can be minimized by flow during setting by applying short pulses of energy (pulse activation) or pre-polymerization at low-intensity light followed by a final cure at high intensity (soft-start techniques) 3 , 33 , as these methods promote a longer pre-gel phase in light-cured composites.

In this part of the study, the experimental design was modified as separated groups were tested according to demonstrated in and . Composite resin was bulk filled into the cavity and cured with different polymerization modes: Z100: QTH- conventional mode-CM (60 seconds- 600 mW/cm 2 ); LED- conventional mode- CM (60 seconds - 130 mW/cm 2 ); QTH-pulse delay mode- PD (3 seconds-200 mW/cm 2 ; 3 min. hiatus; 59 seconds - 600 mW/cm 2 ); and chemical resin that was a control group; A110: QTH- CM; LED-CM; QTH-PD; and chemical-cured resin; SureFil: QTH-CM; LED-CM; QTH-PD; and chemically cured resin. For evaluation of the stress behavior of the composite resins, two curing regimens were selected: QTH-CM: Z100, A110, SureFil, and chemically cured resin that was the control group; QTH-PD: Z100; A110; SureFil and chemically cured resin. The LED-CM was not adopted for evaluation of the composite resins because the results of the pilot study were comparable to those of QTH-CM. Immediately after curing, a section of photoelastic specimen (2.0 mm in thickness) was cut perpendicularly to the long axis of the cavity with a water-cooled diamond saw (Extec Co., Enfield, CT, USA) and was polished with - and -grit abrasive papers (3M, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brasil) under running water ( ). The experiment was carried out at 23°C ± 2°C. Seven sections were obtained for each group. Isochromatic fringes were analyzed under a polarized light microscope (Carl-Zeeiss, Germany), which contained a video-camera. The images were immediately transferred to a computer and were recorded in both color and black fields. The black field was used because it generates greater definition of stress areas making the measurement of these areas possible because stress in the photoelastic resin is only seen in one evident color ( ). Only isochromatics fringes were obtained since the microscopic contained two l/4-foiles between the sample and the analyzer and the polarizer, working as circular polariscope. As the stresses produced by composite resins on the cavity walls are directly proportional to the area of fringes, the total stress was determined by measurement of these areas, which was given in square millimeters (mm 2 ). For these stress areas of evaluation, a specific software (Image-Pro lite, 4.0 version; Media Cybernetics, Bethesda, MD, USA) was used to measure the each picture fringe area by delimitation of the stress area contorniate ( ). Three readings were made for each area. The data for each group were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and multiple comparisons were performed by Tukey's test at p<0.05.

The photoelastic material used in this study was a transparent epoxy resin (Cristal - Redelease, São Paulo, SP, Brazil) 10 . Box-shaped cavities simulating a class I preparation (5 mm long X, 3 mm wide × 2 mm deep) were prepared by placing a transparent resin into a silicone mould containing the previously determined dimensions 21 ( ). Dimentions of a class I cavity were selected because of the strict C-factor of 3.1. One layer of the adhesive resin Scotchbond Multi Purpose (3M/ESPE) was applied to the inner walls of the class I cavities, and light-cured for 20 s with a visible light curing unit (VIP, Bisco Inc.) using a standardized output (600 mW/cm 2 ). This pretreatment allowed slight bonding of the light-cured resin to the photoelastic material.

The curing conditions and experimental groups are listed in . A silicone circular mold (inner diameter 5 mm and height 2.0 mm) was used and a glass slide served as the base for the set-up. A foil electrical resitance strain gauge (KFG-02-120-C1-11, Kyowa, lot Y331/064A, Japan) was attached to the flat glass surface. The gauge was 2 mm long, had an electrical resistance of 120 W and gauge factor 2.00. With the strain gauge in place, the composite resin was placed in the cavity of the silicone frame. Care was taken to ensure that the silicone mould was completely filled. A glass slide was then placed on the top of the Mylar strip for five seconds and composite resin excess was removed. The leads from the strain gauge were connected to a strain-monitoring device (SC- -SG, National Instruments Corp., Austin, TX, USA) that was connected to a data acquisition system (PCI &#; MIO &#; 16×E &#; 50, National Instruments Corp.) and initially balanced at zero. The data obtained were analyzed with LabView software (National Instruments Corp.). The composite specimes were polymerized as described in . Dimensional changes during and after light-curing was monitored at a controlled temperature (22.5 ± 1°C). During the curing process, shrinkage measurements were taken continuously at every one second. Polymerization shrinkage measurements were taken immediately after application of the light source and after 15 minutes. Five composite specimens were used for each group. Data were obtained as microstrain and were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test at 0.05 significance level.

One chemically and three light-cured composite resins with different formulations were used in this study: a hybrid composite, Z100 (3M/ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA; shade A2, Lot 2BA); a hybrid "packable", SureFil (Dentsply, Milford, DE, USA; shade A, Lot ); a microfilled composite, A110 (3M/ESPE, shade A2, Lot 2BL), and Bisfil 2B chemically cured composite (Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA universal shade, Lot -base and -catalyst). The composition of these materials is presented in . The chemically cured resin composite was used according to the manufacturer's instructions. A conventional LCU (QTH; Bisco Inc.) that allowed for independent command over time and power density (VIP- variable intensity polymerizer) and a first-generation LED LCU (Dabi Atlante, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil; 130 mw/cm 2 power density and 450-480 nm wavelength) were used. The polymerization shrinkage and stresses generated during polymerization of the composite resin were determined using a strain gauge and by photoelastic analysis, respectively 21 , 31 .

and show the mean linear shrinkage during the polymerization process for the different groups studied. The stress areas (mm 2 ) obtained with the groups are shown in and . The chemically cured composite resin produced the lowest shrinkage strain and stress (p<0.05). No shrinkage was observed during the initial four-minutes of chemical reaction ( ). For light-cured composites, shrinkage occurred immediately after light polymerization when cured in conventional mode ( ). For Z100 composite the QTH-CM exhibited significantly higher shrinkage than LED-CM and QTH-PD mode (G1>G2>G3). For A110 resin the LED-CM demonstrated significantly lower shrinkage, while no significant differences between QTH-CM and QTH-PD modes were found. Conversely, for SureFil, high shrinkage values were produced by QTH-CM, while no significant differences were observed between LED-CM and QTH-PD modes. Regarding the stress data for Z100, it was observed that the QTH-CM demonstrated significantly higher value than LED-CM and QTH-PD modes. However, the QTH-PD mode produced significantly lower stress value than other light-activated modes (p<0.05). For A110 and SureFil, the QTH-CM and LED-CM exhibited significantly higher stress than QTH-PD mode (p<0.05). In general, the PD mode reduced the contraction and stress values when compared to CM. SureFil composite, independently of the activation mode, showed the lowest shrinkage strain and stress when compared to Z100 and A110 composites (p<0.05). In general, Z100 and A110 showed similar results with greatest contraction strain and stress.

DISCUSSION

Polymerization shrinkage is considered a major problem with resin-based materials because it creates destructive stresses when the material is bonded to cavity walls26. In order to extend the pre-gel phase of the light-cured resins, the intensity of the light and the polymerization rate should be modified to allow molecular rearrangements and decrease of the polymerization contraction stress. The strain gauge method utilized in this study for determination of polymerization shrinkage is able to record the deformation in real time31. For contraction stress evaluation, the photoelastic method was used since it is suitable to visualize the contraction stress areas10. For this part of the evaluation, an early pilot study found that even a small variation in the proportion or manipulation of the transparent resin would produce different results. Therefore, the experimental design was modified until reproducible results were obtained.

The results of this study indicated that the pulse delay mode (QTH) yielded low shrinkage values and stress as compared to the other curing modes studied. Thus, the second hypothesis was rejected. This can be explained due to the low initial energy density applied followed by a final high energy light irradiation, allowing flowing of the material between two pulses. During that initial phase of polymerization, in which the newly formed polymer is still in a flexible state, the stress developed from shrinkage can be relieved by flow of the composite, reducing the stress at the tooth/resin interface17,29. The long pre-gel phase occurs in chemically cured composite resins, in which the reaction happens slowly and with a prolonged low modulus phase12,13,15. Conversely, with light-cured composite resins, there is no pre-gel phase because of its rapid polymerization upon light activation, consequently allowing less resin flow8,17. The results with chemically cured composite resin confirmed this theory (long pre-gel phase), since the strain data showed a lower rate of polymerization and a lower strain mean than light-cured composites when cured by conventional mode. In addition, Bisfil 2B produced the lowest stress areas in the photoelastic analysis. Kinomoto, et al.20 () reported that the main reason for the difference in the magnitudes of the internal stresses between chemically cured and light-cured composites in their study was considered to be that the rate of polymerization of the light-cured composite is much higher than that of the chemically cured composite. The explanation is related to the polymerization of the resin matrix that produces a gelation in which the restorative material is transformed from a viscous-plastic phase with flow into a rigid-elastic phase6,22,36. The pulse delay mode uses the same rationale for reducing the stress17,29.

The first hypothesis of this study was also rejected for shrinkage evaluation. The low contraction rates produced by the LED LCU are explained by its low irradiance and low heat generated. The unit used in this study is classified as a first-generation device because the output is limited and the double-bond conversion is compromised14,25,34. For A110 resin, the LED LCU produced lower shrinkage values than QTH in conventional and pulse delay modes. This result can be explained by the greater attenuation and scattering of light by the submicron filler particles than other light-cured resins, requiring more energy for adequate polymerization4,11,30. For contraction stress evaluation, the first hypothesis was confirmed since the contraction stress data showed that, in general, the QTH in conventional mode produced similar stress to LED. The explanation for these results could be due to the polymerization rate since the LED produces wavelengths with a narrow spectrum that falls within CQ absorption spectrum resulting in an immediate chemical reaction similar to the QTH in conventional mode. Therefore, despite the low power output emitted by the first-generation LED and low contraction rate produced, this LCU produces a rapid polymerization reaction that permits less resin flow, affecting the stress production.

The chemical composition of composite materials is directly related to their viscoelastic properties7,24. Properties, such as elastic modulus and shrinkage strain, have an important relationship with stress development. Strain induces a proportional stress (s) according to Hooke's law, s= e. E, in which e is the relative strain and E is the Young's modulus of the restorative material. Therefore, higher stiffness leads to increased stress for a given shrinkage strain. The opposite is also true, as the amount of shrinkage strain also plays an important role in generating stress in dental composite restorations7. The increase in the filler level will contribute to a reduced shrinkage strain because the overall polymerization shrinkage depends on the amount of polymer matrix7. On the other hand, the stiffness of the composite is also increased at high filler levels24. Comparing the three light-cured composite resins, Z100 (hybrid), A110 (microfilled) and SureFil ("packable"), different properties such as, shrinkage strain and stress development, should be observed. Thus, the third hypothesis was partially accepted because the results of this study demonstrated that the Z100 and A110 composites produced the highest shrinkage strain values and stress areas and were not different to each other. However, SureFil composite showed the lowest shrinkage strain mean and stress area. Although SureFil ("packable") presents a high stiffness, it produced the lowest stress areas. Conversely, A110 (microfilled) presented reduced stiffness, however, it generated greater stress areas as compared to SureFil. Therefore, it is very important to consider the shrinkage value of composite resins and not elastic modulus alone. The composite Z100 has Bis-GMA (Bisphenol-glycidyl methacrylate) monomer diluted with TEGDMA (triethylene glycol dimethacrylate) and the content of the filler is greater (66% in volume; ). The high shrinkage strain verified by Z100 may be explained by the presence of the TEGDMA molecule, which has low molecular weight, high mobility and low viscosity, producing high polymerization shrinkage5,28. The high strain data verified with A110 composite can be explained by its composition, since it presents a high content of organic matrix ( ). Z100 and A110 composites showed the highest means of stress areas, despite different stiffness (21 GPA1- and 7 GPA- Technical Profile-3M, respectively). These results can be related to the development of high shrinkage strain by A110 composite. Conversely, the lower stress area mean produced by SureFil is related to the low shrinkage strain generated, since this material presents high filler load (66% in volume- ). Some of these findings are supported by Ernst, et al.10 (), who observed low stress with a low-shrinkage composite resin.

The company is the world’s best Laser Diamond Cat Eye Nail Polish supplier. We are your one-stop shop for all needs. Our staff are highly-specialized and will help you find the product you need.