Original Article

Comparative study of surface microhardness of

methacrylate‑based composite resins polymerized
with light‑emitting diodes and halogen
Camila Sabatini1

Correspondence: Dr. Camila Sabatini Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental

1

Email: cs252@buffalo.edu Medicine, SUNY at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

ABSTRACT
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of polymerization with quartz‑tungsten‑halogen (QTH) and
light‑emitting diodes (LED) on the surface microhardness of eight commercially available light‑polymerized, methacrylate‑based
composite resins, with different filler particle composition (microfill, minifill, nanohybrids, and microhybrids) immediately
after polymerization, after 24 hours, and after three months of storage. Materials and Methods: Eighty disk‑shaped
specimens were prepared using a split Teflon mold (6 × 2 mm) and were irradiated with either the QTH (Elipar 2500;
600 mW/cm2) for 20 seconds or an LED (Bluephase G2; 1,200 mW/cm2) for 40 seconds. The microhardness values were
recorded using a Vickers hardness tester at a 300 g load for 15 seconds, immediately after polymerization, after 24 hours,
and after three months of dark aging in distilled water at 37°C. Statistical analysis was performed using a two‑way analysis
of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey’s test. Results: The baseline values demonstrated a significant effect of the composite
and the interaction composite‑LCU on the microhardness (P < 0.05). At 24 hours, only the composite variable showed a
significant effect on the hardness values (P < 0.05). After three months, the composite, LCU, and the interaction composite‑LCU
all demonstrated a significant effect on the microhardness (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The effectiveness of polymerization,
measured in terms of surface hardness, was shown to be dependent not only on the type of light curing unit, but also on
the type of composite. Moreover, the choice of composite was shown to affect the performance of the light curing unit.

Key words: Composite resin, halogen, light-emitting diodes, microhardness, polymerization

INTRODUCTION Light‑activated composites polymerize by free radical

polymerization, whereby methacrylate carbon‑carbon
A number of aspects play a role in the success of double bonds become available for cross‑linking
composite resin restorations. Composites’ mechanical monomers into polymeric chains.[4] Most composite
and physical properties are dependent on the degree resin systems use camphorquinone (CQ), which has
of polymerization.[1] The extent of polymerization an absorption peak of 468 nm, as their photoinitiator.
is in turn dependent on the aspects relative to the When exposed to blue light of wavelength in the range
material’s composition and the amount of energy of 400 to 500 nm, CQ reacts with an amine activator
delivered to the material. Aspects such as composite to form free radicals, initiating the polymerization
type, size, amount of inorganic filler loading, resin reaction.[5] Approximately 75% of the polymerization
matrix composition, and the type and concentration reaction takes place during the first 10 minutes,[6,7]
of the photoinitiator,[2] as well as the wavelength of after which composites undergo a post‑irradiation
the emitted light, bulb intensity, exposure time, and polymerization reaction that lasts up to 24 hours.[8] This
distance and angulation of the light tip[3] are all known dark cure has been shown to be quite extensive, with
to affect the composites’ degree of polymerization. as much as 19-26% of the final monomer conversion

How to cite this article: Sabatini C. Comparative study of surface microhardness of methacrylate-based composite resins polymerized with light-
emitting diodes and halogen. Eur J Dent 2013;7:327-35.

Copyright © 2013 Dental Investigations Society. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.115417

European Journal of Dentistry, Vol 7 / Issue 3 / Jul-Sep 2013 327

 Sabatini: Hardness of composites with LED and halogen

taking place during this period. [9] However, the surface microhardness of eight methacrylate‑based
conversion of C = C is not complete; a heterogeneous composite resin materials. (2) There would be no
structure with densely cross‑linked and poorly influence of the type of composite on the surface
cross‑linked areas is generated.[10] microhardness following polymerization with an
LED or QTH.
Halogen and light‑emitting diodes (LEDs) represent
the most commonly used light curing units (LCUs) MATERIALS AND METHODS
for the polymerization of light‑activated composites.
Halogen’s broad emission spectrum allows the Microhardness of eight commercially available
polymerization of a wide range of composite materials. light‑polymerized, methacrylate‑based composite
However, filters that reduce heat energy transfer resins was evaluated in this study. Tetric EvoCeram,
are required to decrease the output of undesired Premise, Artiste, Beautifil II (nanohybrids), Filtek
wavelengths and deliver light in the 410-500 nm region Supreme Plus, and Vit‑l‑escence (microhybrids),
of the visible spectrum.[5] Drawbacks associated with Heliomolar (microfill), and Estelite Sigma
the degradation of these filters have been reported to Quick (minifill), in shade A3 enamel, were polymerized
result in inadequately polymerized restorations.[11] with either LED or halogen LCUs. The composites and
LEDs convert electricity into light more efficiently,[12] LCUs were selected to represent a range of commonly
thereby, eliminating the need for additional filters used products. Table 1 summarizes the composition
to generate blue light. Their narrow wavelength and energy requirements of the composites evaluated
spectrum matches, more closely, the absorption peak in this study as per the manufacturer’s description.
of CQ.[13] Moreover, they can operate for thousands of Five disks were prepared per study group (n = 5)
hours with a constant light output,[14] and the higher for a total of 80 specimens, as determined by the
irradiances allow reduced polymerization times.[15] preliminary power analysis.

Issues derived from insufficient polymerization and The specimens were prepared by condensing the
residual unreacted monomers have been reported to composite into a white polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
compromise the polymer mechanical properties.[16,17] split mold (diameter: 6 mm; height: 2 mm) against a
Poor surface characteristics resulting from insufficient microscope glass slab, with a mylar strip between
polymerization are equally important, as they the glass slab and the PTFE mold, to avoid oxygen
may result in premature degradation, wear, and inhibition and with care to avoid air entrapment.
staining.[18,19] As improved formulations of composite A second mylar strip and glass slab were stabilized
resin materials continue to be developed and to in contact with the uncured composite and pressed
provide a wide range of clinical applications, to the thickness of the mold. Glass slabs were used to
it becomes essential that studies continue to be provide flat specimens with a uniform surface that
undertaken to evaluate their mechanical and physical would be less likely to introduce variations in the
properties when polymerized with different LCUs. microhardness measurements. The split molds were
Because of the good correlation observed between held together by an adjustable metal frame, which also
hardness measurements and the degree of monomer served as a spacer providing a standardized distance
conversion, hardness tests are commonly used as an of 1 mm between the light tip and the surface of the
indirect assessment of the extent of polymerization composite.
of composites.[20‑22]
Two LCUs were used for photoactivation of the
Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate composite specimens: A halogen bulb unit (Elipar
the surface microhardness of eight commercially 2500, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA; 600 mW/cm2)
available light‑polymerized, methacrylate‑based and an LED unit (Bluephase G2, Ivoclar‑Vivadent,
composite resins with different filler particle Amherst, NY, USA; 1,200 mW/cm2) with light probe
composition (microfill, minifill, nanohybrids, diameters of 8 mm and 10 mm, respectively. The light
and microhybrids) polymerized with curing tip was placed at 90° with respect to the surface.
quartz‑tungsten‑halogen (QTH) and light‑emitting The irradiances of the LCUs were measured using a
diodes (LEDs) immediately after polymerization, hand held LED radiometer (Demetron, Kerr, Orange,
after 24 hours, and after three months of storage. CA, USA). The total energy requirement for optimal
The following null hypotheses were tested: (1) There polymerization of the composites, referred to as
would be no influence of the polymerization unit, radiant exposure, was calculated as the product of the
when delivering equivalent energy densities, on the irradiance and the irradiation time recommended by

328 European Journal of Dentistry, Vol 7 / Issue 3 / Jul-Sep 2013

 Sabatini: Hardness of composites with LED and halogen

Table 1: Resin composite brands, categories, and composition as per manufacturer’s description
Product Code Lot Category Matrix Photo‑ Energy Particle size Filler type Filler
(Manufacturer) initiator required* (μm) (Mean) content
(J/cm2) %wt %vol
Estelite Sigma EQ E674 Minifill Bis‑GMA, CQ/ 4.5-6 0.1-0.3 Zirconia‑silica, 82 71
Quick TEGDMA RAP (0.2) composite filler
(Tokuyama,
Tokyo, Japan)
Heliomolar HM M00783 Microfill Bis‑GMA, CQ/ 20 0.04-0.2 Silicon dioxide, 66,7 46
(Ivoclar‑Vivadent, UDMA, amine ytterbium trifluoride,
Amherst, NY) Decandiol pre‑polymers
dimethacrylate
Tetric EvoCeram TEC N58533 Nanohybrid Dimethacrylates CQ/ 10 0.04- Barium glass, ytterbium 75‑76 53‑55
(Ivoclar‑Vivadent, amine 3.0 (0.55) trifluoride, mixed
Amherst, NY) oxide, pre‑polymers
Premise PR 3204934 Nanohybrid Bis‑EMA, CQ/ 10 PPF, 30-50 Pre‑polymerized filler, 84 70
(Kerr, Orange, TEGDMA amine Silica, 0.02 barium glass, silica filler
CA) Barium, 0.4
Artiste (Pentron, AR 167373 Nanohybrid PCBisGMA/ Not 8.0-12 0.02-0.7 Barium boro‑alumino 75 66
Wallingford, CT) BisGMA/ reported silicate glass,
UDMA/HDDMA nano‑particulated silica,
zirconium silicate
Beautifil BII 051026‑51 Giomer Bis‑GMA, CQ/ 10 0.01-4.0 Glass filler, S‑PRG filler 83,3 68,6
II (Shofu, Nanohybrid TEGDMA amine (0.8) (fluoroboroaluminosilicate
Kyoto, Japan) glass)
Filtek Supreme FSP 8EA Micro‑hybrid Bis‑GMA, CQ/ 24 Clusters, Silica filler, zirconia 78,5 59,5
Plus (3M‑ESPE, Bis‑EMA, amine 0.6-1.4; filler, aggregated
St. Paul, MN) UDMA, Silica, 0.02 zirconia/silica
TEGDMA,
PEGDMA
Vit‑L‑Escence VL B4869 Micro‑hydrid Bis‑GMA CQ/ 9,2 0,7 Barium alumina silicate 75 58
(Ultradent, South amine
Jordan, UT)
(*) The energy requirement was calculated based on the information provided from the manufacturer regarding time and light curing unit recommended for
polymerization, Bis‑GMA: Bisphenol A glycidyl dimethacrylate, Bis‑EMA: Ethoxylated bisphenol A dimethacrylate, CQ: Camphorquinone, HDDMA: Hexanediol
dimethacrylate, PCBis‑GMA: Polycarbonate modified‑BisGMA, PEGDMA: Poly (ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate, PPF: Pre‑polymerized filler, RAP: Radical amplified
photopholymerization, TEGDMA: Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, UDMA: Urethane dimethacrylate

the manufacturer. The radiant exposure values ranged optical microscope at a magnification of 50x. The
from 4.5 to 24 J/cm2 [Table 1]. If the manufacturer only specimens were then incubated in distilled water in a
provided recommendations regarding the irradiation dark environment at 37°C. Subsequent microhardness
time, the irradiance of the LCU recommended by measurements were recorded after 24 hours and three
the manufacturer was used to calculate the radiant months.
exposure. For standardization of the amount of energy
delivered to the composites, all specimens received Separate two‑way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
24 J/cm2. To deliver a radiant exposure of 24 J/cm2, tests were used to evaluate the effect of the main
the irradiation time was set to 20 seconds for the variables – composite and LCU – and their interactions
LED (1,200 mW/cm2 × 20 seconds) and 40 seconds on the microhardness at each of the testing periods.
for the halogen (600 mW/cm 2 × 40 seconds). A post‑hoc Tukey’s test was used for pairwise
Immediately after polymerization, the baseline surface multiple comparisons of group means. In addition,
microhardness values were recorded using a Vickers for each composite‑LCU combination, a one‑way
hardness tester (MicroMet 5104, Buehler, Lake Bluff, ANOVA and post‑hoc Student‑Newman‑Keuls test
IL, USA) with a diamond pyramid micro‑indenter. were used to investigate the differences among the
The test was conducted at room temperature (23°C) baseline hardness values, and values after 24 hours
under a load of 300 g with a dwell time of 15 seconds. and three months. A significance level of P < 0.05
Five indentations, 1 mm apart, were made on the was used for all the tests. All statistical analyses
irradiated surface of the specimen and averaged to were performed using the Statistical Package
yield a single microhardness number. The x‑ and for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0 (SPSS Inc,
y‑axes were measured by observation through the Chicago, IL, USA).

European Journal of Dentistry, Vol 7 / Issue 3 / Jul-Sep 2013 329

 Sabatini: Hardness of composites with LED and halogen

RESULTS in hardness values were present when composites

were polymerized with either the halogen or LED,
Evaluation of the hardness values immediately after except for Filtek Supreme Plus, which demonstrated
polymerization by the two‑way ANOVA revealed a significantly higher hardness when polymerized with
significant effect of the composite (P < 0.001) and the the halogen (P = 0.015).
interaction between composite and LCU (P = 0.032),
but no effect of the LCU on the microhardness was Evaluation of the hardness values after three months
observed. Post‑hoc multiple comparisons with the revealed a significant effect of the composite (P < 0.001),
Tukey’s test revealed significant differences among the LCU (P < 0.001), and the interaction between the
composites for both LCUs [Table 2]. For most brands, composite and LCU (P < 0.001) on the microhardness.
no significant differences in hardness values were Significant differences among composites were
demonstrated when the composites were polymerized evidenced for both LCUs [Table 4]. For all composites,
with either the halogen or the LED, except for Tetric polymerization with the halogen yielded significantly
EvoCeram (P = 0.015) and Premise (P = 0.019), higher hardness values (P < 0.001).
which showed significantly higher hardness when
polymerized with the halogen. One‑way ANOVA for each composite‑LCU
combination revealed no significant differences in
After 24 hours, a significant effect on microhardness microhardness values among the different testing
was demonstrated for the composite (P = 0.002), periods, with only a few exceptions [Figure 1]. After
but not for the LCU or the interaction between the LED‑polymerization, significantly lower hardness
composite and LCU. No significant differences among values after three months were seen for Artiste,
composites were observed when the specimens were relative to its 24‑hour values (P < 0.05), and for Estelite
polymerized with LED [Table 3]. Conversely, when Sigma Quick relative to its baseline values (P < 0.05).
composites were polymerized with the halogen, After polymerization with the halogen, Heliomolar
significant differences among composites were demonstrated significantly higher hardness values
evidenced [Table 3]. Overall, no significant differences after three months relative to its baseline (P = 0.005)

Table 2: Mean surface microhardness immediately after polymerization with LED and QTH
Heliomolar Tetric evo Vit‑l‑escence Filtek Premise Artiste Beautifil II Estelite
ceram supreme plus sigma quick
LED 34.1±9.7b,1 69.5±11.2a,b,1 88.3±18.3a,1 96.8±33.6a,1 80.2±20.2a,1 85.3±30.6a,1 89.1±26.7a,1 103.7±27.4a,1
baseline
QTH 36.8±14.4c,1 103.1±17.2a,2 97.4±16.8a,b,1 80.6±12.7a,b,1 112.5±14.1a,2 60.3±15.5b,c,1 99.3±33.0a,b,1 104.5±28.6a,1
baseline
Same superscript letter indicates no significant difference between composites for each LCU (rows), Same superscript number indicates no significant difference
between LCUs for each composite (columns), LED: Light-emitting diodes, QTH: Quartz-tungsten-halogen

Table 3: Mean surface microhardness 24 hours after polymerization with LED and QTH
Heliomolar Tetric evo Vit‑l‑escence Filtek Premise Artiste Beautifil II Estelite
ceram supreme plus sigma quick
LED 54.9±27.1a,[1] 77.8±35.0a,1 94.8±31.5a,1 91.9±36.1a,1 81.4±62.9a,1 110.9±48.0a,1 95.1±64.1a,1 76.8±22.5a,1
24 h
QTH 40.5±12.4c,1 119.7±21.3a,b,1 92.3±23.4a,b,c,1 145.6±35.5a,2 103.7±28.6a,b,c,1 76.6±22.9b,c,1 109.1±32.5a,b,1 77.1±33.3b,c,1
24 h
Same superscript letter indicates no significant difference between composites for each LCU (rows), Same superscript number indicates no significant difference
between LCUs for each composite (columns), LED: Light-emitting diodes, QTH: Quartz-tungsten-halogen

Table 4: Mean surface microhardness three months after polymerization with LED and QTH
Heliomolar Tetric evo Vit‑l‑escence Filtek Premise Artiste Beautifil II Estelite
ceram supreme plus sigma quick
LED 42.0±10.6d,1 44.5±2.8d,1 66.5±6.0a,1 71.0±5.0a,1 54.8±2.2b,c,1 48.5±2.3c,d,1 65.7±5.6a,1 55.9±2.6b,1
3 months
QTH 66.9±5.8f,2 90.1±4.0c,d,2 101.0±4.3b,2 110.4±4.3a,2 97.0±4.2b,c,2 88.2±4.6d,2 75.3±6.6e,2 76.0±5.8e,2
3 months
Same superscript letter indicates no significant difference between composites for each LCU (rows), Same superscript number indicates no significant difference
between LCUs for each composite (columns), LED: Light-emitting diodes, QTH: Quartz-tungsten-halogen

330 European Journal of Dentistry, Vol 7 / Issue 3 / Jul-Sep 2013

 Sabatini: Hardness of composites with LED and halogen

Figure 1: Mean surface microhardness of composites polymerized with LED and halogen immediately after polymerization, at 24 hours and
three months

and 24‑hour values (P = 0.004), Tetric EvoCeram irrespective of the LCU. Significant interactions between
yielded significantly lower hardness values after three the composite and LCU were also demonstrated both
months compared to its 24‑hour values (P = 0.018), at baseline and after three months, indicating that the
and Filtek Supreme Plus showed significantly higher surface hardness of the composites was dependent
hardness values at 24 hours relative to its baseline on the type of LCU used for polymerization. This
values (P < 0.05). was coincident with previous studies, which have
demonstrated that the choice of composite affects the
DISCUSSION performance of LCUs.[2,13,23,24] However, a number of
aspects play a role in the polymerization kinetics of
The present study evaluated the surface microhardness composites, and thus, no definitive statements can be
of eight methacrylate‑based composites with made as to the ability of the different composite‑LCU
different filler particle composition: Tetric EvoCeram, combinations to polymerize.
Premise, Artiste, Beautifil II (nanohybrids), Filtek
Supreme Plus and Vit‑l‑escence (microhybrids), Effect of the light curing unit
Heliomolar (microfill), and Estelite Sigma Evaluation of the hardness values immediately after
Quick (minifill) polymerized, with either halogen or polymerization and at 24 hours showed no significant
LED, after different storage periods. As the surface differences between the specimens polymerized with
characteristics largely determine the future wear LED and halogen, with only a few exceptions: Tetric
and permeability behavior of the polymer, it was the EvoCeram and Premise at baseline and Filtek Supreme
primary focus or our study to evaluate the surface Plus at 24 hours demonstrated significantly higher
hardness characteristics of the various composites hardness values when polymerized with halogen.
when polymerized with the different LCUs. The When the microhardness values were evaluated after
composites and LCUs included in our study were three months, significantly higher values were seen
selected to represent a wide range of commonly used for specimens polymerized with halogen, for all
products. We also investigated changes in surface composites. The observed differences in hardness
hardness characteristics over time for the different values at baseline and 24 hours revealed variations in
composite‑LCU combinations. the extent of polymerization, which might be the result
of aspects relative to material composition and the
The first null hypothesis was only partially accepted. amount of energy delivered during polymerization.
No significant effect of the LCU was demonstrated Conversely, evaluation of the hardness values after
when hardness was evaluated at baseline or at three months incorporated the additional effect of
24 hours. Evaluation of the three‑month values, aging conditions, such as water sorption and polymer
however, revealed a significant effect of the LCU on swelling, which were expected to affect the specimens
microhardness, which resulted in partial rejection of to various degrees depending on the extent of
the first null hypothesis. The second null hypothesis polymer network cross‑linking achieved initially after
was rejected. A significant effect of the composite on photoactivation. Less unreacted monomer,[25] with
microhardness was demonstrated at all testing periods, the consequent greater hardness has previously been

European Journal of Dentistry, Vol 7 / Issue 3 / Jul-Sep 2013 331

 Sabatini: Hardness of composites with LED and halogen

reported for composites polymerized with halogen hardness of composites. First, the information on the
compared to LED. However, the evidence in the output irradiance generated by dental radiometers is
subject remains inconclusive, with studies showing not very accurate.[34] Since the irradiance distribution
no difference in hardness values when polymerization over the light guide tip is not homogeneous, readings
was done with LED and conventional or high‑intensity from dental radiometers, aside from being inaccurate,
QTH, [26] and studies showing greater extent of only provide an average of the irradiance delivered
cure[27,28] and surface hardness[29] for LED‑polymerized over the whole diameter of the light guide, which
composites. does not represent the irradiance actually delivered
to the composite molds.[24] An accurate measurement
A number of aspects are known to affect the of the irradiance and spectral irradiance can be
extent of polymerization of composite materials. obtained with resin calibrators such as MARC‑RC
In theory, delivering the same radiant exposure to or MARC‑PS. Moreover, despite a known radiant
the surface should result in an equivalent degree exposure value, the amount of energy delivered by the
of polymerization, irrespective of the type of LCU. LCU is not equivalent to the energy actually received
Manufacturers normally do not provide information by the composite surface. Since the light output is
regarding the radiant exposure or the amount of rarely a uniform beam and the center of the beam
energy required to ensure optimal polymerization of often delivers considerably greater irradiance,[35,36]
their composites. This information is of great clinical the center of the composite specimen is often better
relevance, and it should be provided in their product polymerized than its peripheral area.[36] In our study,
description. Instead, only recommendations regarding light probe diameters of 8 mm and 10 mm for the
polymerization time are provided, and general halogen and LED, respectively, were used for the
terms such as ‘standard light’ or ‘high‑intensity polymerization of specimens that were 6 mm in
light’ are used to describe the type and mode of diameter. By using light probes with diameters greater
LCU recommended, resulting in a vague estimation than those of the composite specimens, the use of
of the energy requirements. An approximate total peripheral lower‑irradiance energy was minimized
energy value required for optimal polymerization of in the polymerization of the samples. Furthermore,
a composite can be calculated as the product of the five hardness measurements, one central and four
irradiance and the irradiation time recommended by peripheral, were recorded to provide an average
the manufacturer. However, since the exact energy of the surface hardness readings. In addition, as
requirements for maximum curing efficiency remain increased distances from the light‑curing probe to
unclear,[30] it is common to over‑irradiate restorations the composite surface are known to result in loss of
to avoid issues derived from under‑polymerization, intensity,[37] and because a distance of 0 mm to the
such as secondary caries, marginal breakdown, and composite surface is of very limited relevance since
wear. It has been reported that depending on the brand this rarely reflects the clinical situation, this distance
and shade of the composite, as little as 6 J/cm2 or as was standardized to 1 mm by using a metal mold,
much as 36 J/cm2 is required to adequately cure based on recommendations from previous studies.[37,38]
a 2‑mm increment of resin. [31] In our study, the Additional factors such as degradation of the halogen
total energy requirement for polymerization of the built‑in filters, which is known to occur undetected
different composites ranged from 4.5 to 24 J/cm2. For over time, may have also compromised the amount of
standardization of the amount of energy delivered energy delivered to the samples,[11] perhaps yielding
to the composites, the highest recommended value, variations in the hardness results.
24 J/cm2, was used for the polymerization of all
composites, as no further conversion was expected Effect of the composite
to occur as a result of over‑polymerization.[32] A Coincident with results from previous studies, [39]
correlation has been shown between the amount of microhardness values were also shown to be
energy delivered to a composite and the resulting dependent on the type of composite. The composites
degree of conversion and physical properties;[33] included in this study were selected to represent a
however, this relationship is not linear and no further wide range of commercially available materials with
increase in monomer conversion is known to occur different filler particle composition. A correlation
above a certain radiant exposure value.[32] between hardness values and filler loading was
demonstrated for materials in opposite ends of
Other aspects may also be responsible for variations the spectrum. Heliomolar, with the lowest filler
in the extent of polymerization, and therefore, in the content, resulted in the lowest hardness values,

332 European Journal of Dentistry, Vol 7 / Issue 3 / Jul-Sep 2013

 Sabatini: Hardness of composites with LED and halogen

while highly filled materials, such as Filtek Supreme composite.[45] All composites evaluated in our study
Plus, Estelite, and Premise, yielded the highest use CQ as their photoinitiator. Nevertheless, the
hardness values. Heliomolar is made from fumed concentration of CQ and the presence of any other
silica with an average particle size of 40 nm, which unreported photoinitiators in the mixture are both
results in a relative low filler loading. Although unknown, and thus, no associations may be drawn
pre‑polymerized filler particles are incorporated to with the observed results. A study demonstrated
increase the filler content of traditional microfills, that two of the composites evaluated in our study,
they still exhibit substantially lower filler loading Tetric EvoCeram and Vit‑l‑escence, contain TPO in
than microhybrids. Conversely, the wide range their composition.[46] The manufacturers of these
of particle sizes in microhybrids and nanohybrids products, however, do not report this information
allows for greater filler content and a consequent in their product description. Photoinitiators such
higher strength. Filtek Supreme Plus contains a as TPO have a lower absorption peak of around
combination of 20 to 75 nm nanofillers and loosely 380 nm,[45] and hence, a less cross‑linked polymer
bound agglomerates of nanosized particles that may be the result of polymerization with a narrow
behave as a single unit, enabling high filler loading, bandwidth LED unit. In our study, a poly‑wave LED
and thus, high strength. unit with a broadband spectrum between 380 and
515 nm was used. The wider emission spectrum,
Studies have previously demonstrated lower comparable to that of halogen lights, allows curing of
hardness values for microfilled composites relative composites containing all photoinitiator systems; thus,
to microhybrids.[40‑42] This may be explained not only the differences in hardness values observed for Tetric
by the greater organic resin matrix content, which is EvoCeram polymerized with either halogen or LED
known to produce a less cross‑linked polymer network, cannot be attributed to these additional unreported
but also by the greater light scattering derived from co‑initiators.
the small filler size of microfilled composites, which
compromises the effectiveness of polymerization. Effect of the storage time
Filler particles are known to scatter light, and both Hardness tests most commonly report results obtained
filler size and content influence light dispersion.[43] immediately after polymerization, at 24 hours, and a
Smaller filler particles, such as microfills (0.01-0.1 μm) few days following initial photoactivation. Typically,
and minifills (0.1-1.0 μm), scatter more light than an increase in hardness values is observed in the first
microhybrids, which contain a combination of few hours/days following initial photoactivation, due
different particle sizes.[43] As the light beam becomes to a continued polymerization reaction. Results from
scattered and reflected within the composite material, long‑term storage, conversely, provide information
it loses intensity, with the consequent adverse effect regarding the effect of different aging conditions,
on the degree of polymerization.[43] such as water sorption, thermal variations, and wear,
in the stability of the polymer network. Although
The nature of the resin matrix has also been reported the main purpose of this study was not to assess
to affect the hardness and overall mechanical changes in hardness values over time, comparisons
properties of composites. TEGDMA is known to among baseline, 24 hours, and three‑month hardness
create a much more dense network than Bis‑GMA.[44] values were also conducted for each composite‑LCU
Newer formulations of composites incorporate an combination. Overall, most composites demonstrated
increased TEGDMA content, a more reactive diluent an increase in hardness values after 24 hours, which
monomer (a‑methylene‑g‑butyrolactone), carboxylic was followed by a decrease in hardness after three
anhydrides, aldehydes, and diketones, all of which months of storage. Only a few exceptions were
allow increased polymer matrix cross‑linking, with observed, as shown in Figure 1. Despite the observed
the consequent improved mechanical and physical trends, the differences remained not significant for
properties.[43] However, manufacturers normally do most composite‑LCU combinations. Our results are in
not disclose proprietary information regarding the agreement with previous studies, which have shown
specific composition of their materials, and thus, that there is typically an increase in hardness values
correlations based merely on material composition during the first 24 hours following polymerization.[47]
cannot be established.
After three months, a decrease in hardness values was
The type and concentration of the photoinitiator is seen for most composite‑LCU combinations, which
also known to influence the curing efficiency of the was more noticeable for some materials. The same

European Journal of Dentistry, Vol 7 / Issue 3 / Jul-Sep 2013 333

 Sabatini: Hardness of composites with LED and halogen

aging conditions affected the stability of the polymer on degree of conversion in light‑cured dimethacrylate‑based dental
resins. Biomaterials 2002;23:1819‑29.
network of the various composite‑LCU combinations 11. Mills RW, Uhl A, Blackwell GB, Jandt KD. High power light emitting
differently, perhaps based on the extent of their diode (LED) arrays versus halogen light polymerization of oral
biomaterials: Barcol hardness, compressive strength and radiometric
initial cross‑linking. These results also remained not
properties. Biomaterials 2002;23:2955‑63.
significant and only a few exceptions of increased 12. Price RB, Felix CA, Andreou P. Knoop hardness of ten resin composites
hardness values after three months were observed. irradiated with high‑power LED and quartz‑tungsten‑halogen lights.
Biomaterials 2005;26:2631‑41.
Heliomolar polymerized with halogen was the only 13. Uhl A, Sigusch BW, Jandt KD. Second generation LEDs for the
combination that showed a significant increase in polymerization of oral biomaterials. Dent Mater 2004;20:80‑7.
hardness values after three months relative to both 14. Ruttermann S, Tomruk S, Raab WH, Janda R. Effect of energy density
on the physical properties of resin‑based restorative materials when
baseline and 24 hours. Future studies should explore polymerized with quartz‑tungsten halogen or LED‑light. Eur J Dent
the presence of correlations between initial hardness 2010;4:183‑91.
15. Fleming GJ, Awan M, Cooper PR, Sloan AJ. The potential of a
values and the rate at which composite materials resin‑composite to be cured to a 4mm depth. Dent Mater 2008;24:522‑9.
degrade over time. 16. Ferracane JL. Correlation between hardness and degree of conversion
during the setting reaction of unfilled dental restorative resins. Dent
Mater 1985;1:11‑4.
CONCLUSIONS 17. Mills RW, Jandt KD, Ashworth SH. Dental composite depth of cure
with halogen and blue light emitting diode technology. Br Dent J
1999;186:388‑91.
Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the 18. Dietschi D, Campanile G, Holz J, Meyer JM. Comparison of the color
following can be concluded: stability of ten new‑generation composites: An in vitro study. Dent
• When delivering equivalent energy densities, Mater 1994;10:353‑62.
19. Doray PG, Wang X, Powers JM, Burgess JO. Accelerated aging affects
polymerization with the halogen or LED did not color stability of provisional restorative materials. J Prosthodont
have a significant effect in microhardness values 1997;6:183‑8.
20. Santos GB, Medeiros IS, Fellows CE, Muench A, Braga RR.
either at baseline or after 24 hours. After three Composite depth of cure obtained with QTH and LED units assessed
months, a significant effect of the LCU was evident by microhardness and micro‑Raman spectroscopy. Oper Dent
with significantly higher hardness values when all 2007;32:79‑83.
21. Rode KM, Kawano Y, Turbino ML. Evaluation of curing light distance
composites were polymerized with the halogen. on resin composite microhardness and polymerization. Oper Dent
• A significant effect of the type of composite on 2007;32:571‑8.
22. da Silva EM, Poskus LT, Guimaraes JG. Influence of light‑polymerization
the microhardness values was shown at all testing modes on the degree of conversion and mechanical properties of resin
periods, irrespective of the LCU. composites: A comparative analysis between a hybrid and a nanofilled
• Significant interactions between the composite composite. Oper Dent 2008;33:287‑93.
23. Uhl A, Michaelis C, Mills RW, Jandt KD. The influence of storage
and LCU were also evident at baseline and after and indenter load on the Knoop hardness of dental composites
three months, indicating that the surface hardness polymerized with LED and halogen technologies. Dent Mater
2004;20:21‑8.
of the composites was dependent on the type of 24. Uhl A, Mills RW, Jandt KD. Photoinitiator dependent composite depth
LCU used for polymerization. of cure and Knoop hardness with halogen and LED light curing units.
Biomaterials 2003;24:1787‑95.
25. Filipov IA, Vladimirov SB. Residual monomer in a composite resin
REFERENCES after light‑curing with different sources, light intensities and spectra
of radiation. Braz Dent J 2006;17:34‑8.
1. Tseng WY, Huang CH, Chen RS, Lee MS, Chen YJ, Rueggeberg FA, 26. Yazici AR, Kugel G, Gul G. The Knoop hardness of a composite
et al. Monomer conversion and cytotoxicity of dental composites resin polymerized with different curing lights and different modes.
irradiated with different modes of photoactivated curing. J Biomed J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8:52‑9.
Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2007;83:85‑90. 27. Hasler C, Zimmerli B, Lussi A. Curing capability of halogen and LED
2. Leonard DL, Charlton DG, Roberts HW, Cohen ME. Polymerization light curing units in deep class II cavities in extracted human molars.
efficiency of LED curing lights. J Esthet Restor Dent 2002;14:286‑95. Oper Dent 2006;31:354‑63.
3. Aravamudhan K, Rakowski D, Fan PL. Variation of depth of cure 28. Ye Q, Wang Y, Williams K, Spencer P. Characterization of
and intensity with distance using LED curing lights. Dent Mater photopolymerization of dentin adhesives as a function of light
2006;22:988‑94. source and irradiance. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater
4. Peutzfeldt A. Resin composites in dentistry: The monomer systems. 2007;80:440‑6.
Eur J Oral Sci 1997;105:97‑116. 29. Campregher UB, Samuel SM, Fortes CB, Medina AD, Collares FM,
5. Rueggeberg F. Contemporary issues in photocuring. Compend Contin Ogliari FA. Effectiveness of second‑generation light‑emitting
Educ Dent Suppl 1999;S4‑15; quiz S73. diode (LED) light curing units. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8:35‑42.
6. Chung KH, Greener EH. Correlation between degree of conversion, 30. Rueggeberg FA. State‑of‑the‑art: Dental photocuring: A review. Dent
filler concentration and mechanical properties of posterior composite Mater 2011;27:39‑52.
resins. J Oral Rehabil 1990;17:487‑94. 31. Calheiros FC, Kawano Y, Stansbury JW, Braga RR. Influence of radiant
7. Ferracane JL, Greener EH. The effect of resin formulation on the degree exposure on contraction stress, degree of conversion and mechanical
of conversion and mechanical properties of dental restorative resins. properties of resin composites. Dent Mater 2006;22:799‑803.
J Biomed Mater Res 1986;20:121‑31. 32. Calheiros FC, Braga RR, Kawano Y, Ballester RY. Relationship between
8. Eliades GC, Vougiouklakis GJ, Caputo AA. Degree of double bond contraction stress and degree of conversion in restorative composites.
conversion in light‑cured composites. Dent Mater 1987;3:19‑25. Dent Mater 2004;20:939‑46.
9. Halvorson RH, Erickson RL, Davidson CL. Energy dependent 33. Halvorson RH, Erickson RL, Davidson CL. Energy dependent
polymerization of resin‑based composite. Dent Mater 2002;18:463‑9. polymerization of resin‑based composite. Dent Mater 2002;18:463‑9.
10. Sideridou I, Tserki V, Papanastasiou G. Effect of chemical structure 34. Roberts HW, Vandewalle KS, Berzins DW, Charlton DG. Accuracy of

334 European Journal of Dentistry, Vol 7 / Issue 3 / Jul-Sep 2013

 Sabatini: Hardness of composites with LED and halogen

LED and halogen radiometers using different light sources. J Esthet 43. Malhotra N, Mala K. Light‑curing considerations for resin‑based
Restor Dent 2006;18:214‑22. composite materials: A review. Part II. Compend Contin Educ Dent
35. Vandewalle KS, Roberts HW, Andrus JL, Dunn WJ. Effect of light 2010;31:584‑8, 590‑1; quiz 592, 603.
dispersion of LED curing lights on resin composite polymerization. 44. Sideridou I, Tserki V, Papanastasiou G. Study of water sorption,
J Esthet Restor Dent 2005;17:244‑54. solubility and modulus of elasticity of light‑cured dimethacrylate‑based
36. Vandewalle KS, Roberts HW, Rueggeberg FA. Power distribution dental resins. Biomaterials 2003;24:655‑65.
across the face of different light guides and its effect on composite 45. Schneider LF, Cavalcante LM, Prahl SA, Pfeifer CS, Ferracane JL.
surface microhardness. J Esthet Restor Dent 2008;20:108‑17. Curing efficiency of dental resin composites formulated with
37. Pires JA, Cvitko E, Denehy GE, Swift EJ Jr. Effects of curing tip distance camphorquinone or trimethylbenzoyl‑diphenyl‑phosphine oxide.
on light intensity and composite resin microhardness. Quintessence Dent Mater 2012;28:392‑7.
Int 1993;24:517‑21. 46. Santini A, Miletic V, Swift MD, Bradley M. Degree of conversion and
38. Sobrinho LC, de Lima AA, Consani S, Sinhoreti MA, Knowles JC. microhardness of TPO‑containing resin‑based composites cured by
Influence of curing tip distance on composite Knoop hardness values. polywave and monowave LED units. J Dent 2012;40:577‑84.
Braz Dent J 2000;11:11‑7. 47. Ciccone‑Nogueira JC, Borsatto MC, de Souza‑Zaron WC, Ramos RP,
39. Giorgi MC, Aguiar FH, Soares LE, Martin AA, Liporoni PC, Palma‑Dibb RG. Microhardness of composite resins at different depths
Paulillo LA. Does an additional UV LED improve the degree of varying the post‑irradiation time. J Appl Oral Sci 2007;15:305‑9.
conversion and Knoop Hardness of light‑shade composite resins?
Eur J Dent 2012;6:396‑401.
40. Dunn WJ, Bush AC. A comparison of polymerization by light‑emitting
Access this article online
diode and halogen‑based light‑curing units. J Am Dent Assoc
2002;133:335‑41. Quick Response Code:
41. Giorgi MC, Sartini Paulillo LA. Knoop hardness of composites cured Website:
www.eurjdent.com
with halogen and led light‑curing units in class I restorations. Braz J
Oral Sci 2009;8:30‑3.
42. Leonard DL, Charlton DG, Roberts HR, Hilton TJ, Zionic A.
Determination of the minimum irradiance required for adequate Source of Support: Nil.
polymerization of hybrid and microfill composite. Oper Dent Conflict of Interest: None declared
2001;26:176‑80.

European Journal of Dentistry, Vol 7 / Issue 3 / Jul-Sep 2013 335