Light curing infection control barriers: do some types jeopardize the concept of conventional bulk-fill composites?
Abstract Background Using infection control barriers (ICBs) on light curing units (LCUs) became mandatory to achieve proper infection control measures without jeopardizing the integrity of the restorations, especially at deeper layers. This study explored the effect of two ICBs on the irradiance of...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2024-11-01
|
| Series: | BMC Oral Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05033-8 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850255886605352960 |
|---|---|
| author | Dalia I. Sherief Mohamed M. Kandil Dina Ahmed El-Refai |
| author_facet | Dalia I. Sherief Mohamed M. Kandil Dina Ahmed El-Refai |
| author_sort | Dalia I. Sherief |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Using infection control barriers (ICBs) on light curing units (LCUs) became mandatory to achieve proper infection control measures without jeopardizing the integrity of the restorations, especially at deeper layers. This study explored the effect of two ICBs on the irradiance of the LCU, as well as the degree of conversion (DC) and flexural strength (FS) of two types of bulk-fill composites. Water vapor permeability (WVP) of both barriers was also assessed to evaluate the capability of such barriers to prevent transmission of blood and saliva droplets and aerosols. Methods Two bulk-fill composites (X-tra fil and Tetric N- ceram) and two ICBs (Pinnacle Cure sleeve and Sanita wrapping film) were used in this study. Light irradiance was recorded per experimental condition using spectroradiometer. For DC and FS, specimens of 4 mm thickness were prepared. Each specimen was composed of two separable upper and lower layers of thickness 2 mm. DC and FS were measured using Infra-red spectroscopy and three-point loading test respectively. WVP was investigated using the cup method. Means and standard deviations were calculated, and the data were statistically analyzed using factorial analysis of variance test (α = 0.05). Results Light irradiance showed highest values using no ICBs and lowest values using Pinnacle curing sleeve. Both bulk-fill composites showed higher DC mean values without ICBs and when using Sanita wrapping film for both upper and lower layers of the specimens compared to Pinnacle curing sleeve. The upper layers of composite specimens showed higher DC compared to lower layers for all experimental conditions. Both ICBs had no adverse effect on FS of both composites’ upper layers. Pinnacle sleeve significantly reduced FS of both composites’ lower layers. X-tra fil showed higher DC and FS compared to Tetric N-Ceram for all experimental conditions. Regarding WVP; the wrapping film showed higher WVP compared to the curing sleeve. Conclusions Sanita wrapping film can be used as a successful ICB, without jeopardizing the concept of bulk-fill composites. Pinnacle cure sleeve can be considered an effective ICB, however its influence on properties and serviceability of bulk-fill composites remains questionable. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-754e25e119a64a569c51c942e0c3a6d2 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1472-6831 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-11-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Oral Health |
| spelling | doaj-art-754e25e119a64a569c51c942e0c3a6d22025-08-20T01:56:46ZengBMCBMC Oral Health1472-68312024-11-0124111010.1186/s12903-024-05033-8Light curing infection control barriers: do some types jeopardize the concept of conventional bulk-fill composites?Dalia I. Sherief0Mohamed M. Kandil1Dina Ahmed El-Refai2Biomaterials Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain-Shams UniversityBiomaterials Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain-Shams UniversityBiomaterials Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain-Shams UniversityAbstract Background Using infection control barriers (ICBs) on light curing units (LCUs) became mandatory to achieve proper infection control measures without jeopardizing the integrity of the restorations, especially at deeper layers. This study explored the effect of two ICBs on the irradiance of the LCU, as well as the degree of conversion (DC) and flexural strength (FS) of two types of bulk-fill composites. Water vapor permeability (WVP) of both barriers was also assessed to evaluate the capability of such barriers to prevent transmission of blood and saliva droplets and aerosols. Methods Two bulk-fill composites (X-tra fil and Tetric N- ceram) and two ICBs (Pinnacle Cure sleeve and Sanita wrapping film) were used in this study. Light irradiance was recorded per experimental condition using spectroradiometer. For DC and FS, specimens of 4 mm thickness were prepared. Each specimen was composed of two separable upper and lower layers of thickness 2 mm. DC and FS were measured using Infra-red spectroscopy and three-point loading test respectively. WVP was investigated using the cup method. Means and standard deviations were calculated, and the data were statistically analyzed using factorial analysis of variance test (α = 0.05). Results Light irradiance showed highest values using no ICBs and lowest values using Pinnacle curing sleeve. Both bulk-fill composites showed higher DC mean values without ICBs and when using Sanita wrapping film for both upper and lower layers of the specimens compared to Pinnacle curing sleeve. The upper layers of composite specimens showed higher DC compared to lower layers for all experimental conditions. Both ICBs had no adverse effect on FS of both composites’ upper layers. Pinnacle sleeve significantly reduced FS of both composites’ lower layers. X-tra fil showed higher DC and FS compared to Tetric N-Ceram for all experimental conditions. Regarding WVP; the wrapping film showed higher WVP compared to the curing sleeve. Conclusions Sanita wrapping film can be used as a successful ICB, without jeopardizing the concept of bulk-fill composites. Pinnacle cure sleeve can be considered an effective ICB, however its influence on properties and serviceability of bulk-fill composites remains questionable.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05033-8Infection control barriersBulk- fill compositesFlexural strengthLight irradianceDegree of conversionWater vapor permeability |
| spellingShingle | Dalia I. Sherief Mohamed M. Kandil Dina Ahmed El-Refai Light curing infection control barriers: do some types jeopardize the concept of conventional bulk-fill composites? BMC Oral Health Infection control barriers Bulk- fill composites Flexural strength Light irradiance Degree of conversion Water vapor permeability |
| title | Light curing infection control barriers: do some types jeopardize the concept of conventional bulk-fill composites? |
| title_full | Light curing infection control barriers: do some types jeopardize the concept of conventional bulk-fill composites? |
| title_fullStr | Light curing infection control barriers: do some types jeopardize the concept of conventional bulk-fill composites? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Light curing infection control barriers: do some types jeopardize the concept of conventional bulk-fill composites? |
| title_short | Light curing infection control barriers: do some types jeopardize the concept of conventional bulk-fill composites? |
| title_sort | light curing infection control barriers do some types jeopardize the concept of conventional bulk fill composites |
| topic | Infection control barriers Bulk- fill composites Flexural strength Light irradiance Degree of conversion Water vapor permeability |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05033-8 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT daliaisherief lightcuringinfectioncontrolbarriersdosometypesjeopardizetheconceptofconventionalbulkfillcomposites AT mohamedmkandil lightcuringinfectioncontrolbarriersdosometypesjeopardizetheconceptofconventionalbulkfillcomposites AT dinaahmedelrefai lightcuringinfectioncontrolbarriersdosometypesjeopardizetheconceptofconventionalbulkfillcomposites |