J O U R N A L O F M AT E R I A L S S C I E N C E : M AT E R I A L S I N M E D I C I N E 1 1 ( 2 0 0 0 ) 3 6 1 ± 3 6 4

Correlation between light intensity and exposure

time on the hardness of composite resin
L. CORRER SOBRINHO, M. F. DE GOES, S. CONSANI, M. A. C. SINHORETI,
Department of Biomaterials, Piracicaba Dental School (UNICAMP), Avenida Limeira, 901,
Piracicaba-SP, Post code 13414-900, Brazil
J. C. KNOWLES*
Department of Biomaterials, Eastman Dental Institute, 256 Gray's Inn Road, London,
WC1X 8LD, UK
E-mail: [email protected]

This study evaluated the correlation between light intensity emitted by the curing units and
exposure time on the of degree polymerization of dental composites by measured Knoop
hardness. Specimens with 5 mm diameter and 2 mm height were prepared in a copper mold,
covered with a mylar strip and polymerized for 30 sec by curing units with 50, 130, 180, 220,
280 and 520 mW/cm2, respectively. The output for all units was measured using a Curing
Radiometer (Demetron). Other specimens were polymerized for 45, 60, 75, 90, 105, 120, 135,
150, 165 and 180 sec utilizing units of 130, 220 and 280 mW/cm2. Knoop hardness values of
the top and bottom surfaces were measured after 24 h. The results indicate that the curing
units with higher light intensity presented improved values of Knoop hardness on the top
and bottom regions. As expected, the top surface always presented improved Knoop
hardness values in relation to the bottom, after exposure for 30 sec. The values obtained on
the surface were statistically superior compared to the values on the bottom p50:05† for the
intensity of 130, 220 and 280 mW/cm2 after 30, 45 and 60 sec of exposure.
# 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers

1. Introduction compared to the bottom surface, and the hardness may be

The use of light to polymerize composite resins has improved by increasing exposure time [5±7].
increased in the last few years. The polymerization In the last few years, the widespread use of light-
requires suf®cient intensity of light and suitable sources has given rise to manufacturers producing
wavelength to activate a light-sensitive material, con- several varieties of light-source. Nevertheless, these
taining a camphorquinone to react with a reducing agent light-source units do not show any information about the
[1]. This combination will result in the formation of free quantity of energy emitted by them. However, many
radicals, which can then migrate and initiate the factors can affect the intensity of light-curing units, such
polymerization of the resin [2]. The wavelength of as line voltage [8], condition of the bulb and ®lters [9],
light that causes the camphorquinine excitation is within resin adherent to the curing tip end, and fracture of optic
the blue region of the visible spectrum, between 450 and ®ber bundles inside the curing unit [10]. Thus, the
500 nm [3]. The intensity of this radiation is very manufacturers have recently produced a large number of
important to produce a suf®cient number of free radicals radiometers.
to cure the restorative composite material. The radiometer is useful for measuring the light
An adequate light with proper wavelength range must intensity of the curing unit in the amount of energy on a
reach all areas of a light-activated restoration to ensure given surface area (mW/cm2), in a limited wavelength
suitable polymerization and long-term clinical sucess. range (400 to 520 nm). This is a way that clinicians can
The cure depth is affected by many factors, including rely on to verify periodically the intensity of dental
curing light, intensity, exposure time, distance from the curing lights [11±13].
curing tip and attenuation of the light by the composite The purpose of this paper was to study the correlation
resin [3, 4]. between the light intensity emitted by curing units
The polymerization depth is directly related to the monitored by a radiometer and the exposure time on the
thickness of the material and in¯uenced by light intensity. polymerization degree of dental composite by Knoop
Therefore, the top surface gives higher hardness values hardness.

*Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed.

0957±4530 # 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers 361

2. Materials and methods with all (50, 130, 180, 220, 280 and 520 mW/cm2) light
The specimens were made in a circular cavity with 5 mm intensities after an exposure time of 30 sec.
diameter and 2 mm height, inside a sectional copper Figs 1±3 show the mean values of hardness for light
mold (10 mm diameter and 10 mm height) which intensities of 130, 220 and 280 mW/cm2. Top and bottom
permitted the removal of the specimens. The cavity surface hardness improved with increasing exposure
was ®lled with composite resin (Herculit XRV-A3, Kerr time. Knoop hardness values obtained in the surface
Manufacturing Company, MI), covered with a mylar region were statistically superior when compared to the
strip, and polymerized for 30 s. Three curing units values obtained on the bottom region p50:05† for 130,
(Heliomat-Vivadent Co., Rio de Janeiro) with intensity 220 and 280 mW/cm2 light intensities after 30, 45 and
of 50, 220 and 280 mW/cm2; two curing units (Fibralux- 60 sec of exposure. The other exposure times (75 to
Dabi-Atlante Co., RibeiraÄo Preto) with intensity of 130 180 sec) gave no statistical difference between the top
and 180 mW/cm2; and one curing unit (Visilux 2 Dental and bottom regions.
Products/3M St Paul, MN) with light intensity of
520 mW/cm2 were used. The light output for all units
was measured by Curing Radiometer Model 100
(Demetron Research Corporation, Danbury, CT). 4. Discussion
Eighteen specimens were made for the control group. Visible light with proper wavelength and suf®cient
They were divided into three groups of three specimens intensity is essential for adequate polymerization of
for each light intensity used. light-activated composite resins [4]. The radiometer used
Three specimens were made using light emission at in this study showed that decreasing the light intensity
45, 60, 75, 90, 105, 120, 135, 150, 165 and 180 sec decreased the top and bottom hardness. Thus, the
utilizing Fibralux with 130 mW/cm2 and Heliomat with radiometer manufacturers state that there is a direct
220 and 280 mW/cm2 curing units. These 90 specimens relationship between emitted intensity and depth of cure.
were considered experimental groups. Instructions for the Curing Radiometer model 100,
After the polymerization procedure, the specimens indicate that an intensity of 300 mW/cm2 or more
were removed from the copper mold and stored at should provide a 3 mm cure depth. However, the data
37+ C and 95 + 5% relative humidity for 24 h. After from this study contradict that statement. We veri®ed that
storage, the specimens were put in a vertical position and the increments should not be greater than 2 mm and other
embedded in polyester resin (Resapol T208). (Norton authors show 1 mm thickness is ideal for improving the
S.A., Brazil) and submitted to metallographic polishing composite resin hardness [14].
(Metalserv-Rotary Pregrinder, UK) with chromiun oxide Duration and exposure intensity of visible light are
(0.03 mm) and alumina (0.05 mm) aqueous solution. important factors in composite resin polymerization.
Microhardness indentations were made across a Composite resin requires suf®cient intensity of the light
section of the composite resin using a Durimet (Leitz and suitable wavelength for the camphorquinone
Wetzlar, Germany), with a 50 g load by 30 sec. Five activation responsible for initiating polymerization
measurements were made on both top and bottom of each [15]. Continuing exposure sustains the camphorquinone
specimen. The mean measurements for each surface activation near the surface. The curing units with intense
were converted to Knoop hardness number (KHN), and light showed superior Knoop hardness values on the top
submitted to Tukey's statistical analysis. and bottom regions.
In our study, the Knoop hardness values obtained on
the top surface were statistically superior in relation to
the values obtained on the bottom for 130, 220 and
3. Results 280 mW/cm2 light intensities after 30, 45 and 60 sec of
The mean values of Knoop hardness for the composite exposure, but they were similar after 60 sec. Similar
resin exposed for 30 sec are shown in Table I. The greater results were obtained in previous studies [16, 17].
hardness values in the top region were obtained with 280 In addition, prolonged irradiation time is effective in
and 520 mW/cm2 light intensities, as expected, with no increasing the hardness, especially at the deeper levels of
statistical difference between them. In the bottom region, the specimens [5, 17±20].
the greater values were obtained with 520 mW/cm2. The Inadequate polymerization indicates a reduction in the
top surface always presented statistically superior physical properties of composite resin. Changes in
hardness values in relation to the bottom p50:05† strength, water sorption, stiffness, toughness and color

T A B L E I The mean values (KHN) obtained on the top and bottom surfaces of the composite resin specimens, exposed for 30 sec and cured with
50 to 520 mW/cm2 light intensity

Light intensity (mW/cm2) Top SD Bottom SD

50 56.02 a, A 0.92 36.40 b, A 1.34

130 65.22 a, B 1.04 56.81 b, B 1.08
180 69.98 a, B 1.63 59.47 b, B 1.58
220 76.60 a, C 1.17 67.42 b, C 1.10
280 80.86 a, CD 2.02 72.85 b, C 1.63
520 84.80 a, D 1.98 80.64 b, D 1.41

Means followed by the same small letter in the line and capital letter in column indicate no statistical difference at the 95% con®dence level (Tukey's
test, p50:05).

362
Figure 1 Mean values (KHN) of the top and bottom surfaces, exposed for 30 until 180 sec and cured with 130 mW/cm2 light intensities.

stability are signi®cant problems when approximation of periodically by clinicians to maximize the cure of
the curing tip end in class II restorations is impossible composite resin [2, 11±13]. In addition, according to
[21]. our study, the clinician should utilize curing units with
The curing times recommended by manufacturers light intensity greater than 280 mW/cm2 and 75 sec of
should be extended to cure the composite regardless of exposure.
the restoration depth [4, 20]. On the other hand, some
investigators had concluded [4, 12] that the radiometers 5. Conclusions
are not fully reliable. Instead they can become very The results of this paper show that: (1) Curing units with
useful for monitoring the output from a curing unit higher light intensity improved the Knoop hardness

Figure 2 Mean values (KHN) of the top and bottom surfaces, exposed for 30 until 180 sec and cured with 220 mW/cm2 light intensities.

363
Figure 3 Mean values (KHN) of the top and bottom surfaces, exposed for 30 until 180 sec and cured with 280 mW/cm2 light intensities.

values on the top and bottom regions. The top surface 10. B . F. P O L L AC K and A . L. LEWIS, General Dent. 29 (1981) 488.
always presented statistically superior Knoop hardness 11. C . S . FO W L E R , M . L . S WA R T Z and B . K . M O O R E , Operat.
Dent. 19 (1994) 47.
values in relation to the bottom at 50, 130, 180, 220, 280 12. E. K. HANSEN and E . A S M U S S E N , Scand. J. Dent. Res. 101
and 520 mW/cm2 intensities and after 30 sec exposure (1993) 115.
p50:05†. (2) The same results were obtained with 130, 13. S . Y. L E E , C . H . C H I U , A . B O G H O S I A N and E . H . G R E E N E R ,
220 and 280 mW/cm2 after 30, 45 and 60 sec exposure. J. Dent. 21 (1993) 373.
The exposure times of 75, 90, 105, 120, 135, 150, 165 14. F. A . R U E G G E B E R G , W. F. CA U G H M A N and J . W. C U R T I S
J R , Operat. Dent. 19 (1994) 26.
and 180 sec did not present a statistical difference 15. R . J . B L A N K E N A U , W. P. K E L S E Y, W. T. CAV E L and P.
between the two regions. B L A N K E N A U , J.A.D.A. 106 (1983) 471.
16. J . C . N E O , G . E . D E N E H Y and D . B . B OY E R , J.A.D.A. 113
References (1986) 100.
1. W. D . C O O K , J. Dent. Res. 59 (1980) 800. 17. S . M A S U TA N I , S . A R A I , S . A N D O , K . N A K A G AWA and H . J .
2. F. A . R U E G G E B E R G , Quintessence Int. 24 (1993) 391. O N O S E , Dent. Res. 66 (1987) 126.
3. American Dental Association, J.A.D.A. 110 (1985) 100. 18. R . L . L E U N G , P. L . F A N and N . M . J O H N S T O N , J. Dent. Res. 61

4. J . A . P I R E S , E . C V I T KO , G . E . D E N E H Y and E . J . S W I F T J R , (1982) 248.

Quintessence Int. 24 (1993) 517. 19. Idem., J. Dental. Res. 62 (1983) 363.
5. H . B A H A R AV, D . A B R A H A N , H . S . CA R D A S H and M . H E L F T, 20. H . M AT S U M O T O , J . E . G R E S , V. A . M A R K E R , T. O K A B E ,
J. Oral Rehabilit. 15 (1988) 167. J . L . F E R R ACA N E and H A R V E Y, J. Prosth. Dent. 55 (1986) 574.

6. W. D . C O O K , Biomaterials 7 (1986) 449. 21. M . L . S WA R T Z , R . W. P H I L L I P S and B . R H O D E S , J.A.D.A.

7. C . D E L A N G E , J . R . B A U S C H and C . L . D AV I D S O N , J. Oral 106 (1983) 634.
Rehabilit. 7 (1980) 369.
8. P. L . F A N , W. T. W O Z N I A K , W. D . R E Y E S and J . W.
S TA N F O R D , J.A.D.A. 115 (1987) 442.
9. D . C . WAT T S , O . A M E R and E . C . CO M B E , Brit. Dent. J. 156 Received 6 October 1998
(1984) 209. and accepted 30 April 1999

364