Home | Register | Login | Inquiries | Alerts | Sitemap |  

Advanced Search
J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent. 1998;25(2): 368-382.
주상호, 최형준, 김성오, 이종갑
연세 대학교 치과대학 소아치과학교실
Share :  
The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the results of argon laser for 5 seconds, argon laser for 10 seconds, and visible light for 40 seconds photo-polymerization in compressive strength, microhardness, curing depth, temperature rising during polymerization, and polymerization shrinkage. Hybrid type composite resin(Z-100) and compomer(Dyract) were used to be compared. The compressive strength was measured by an Instron(1mm/min cross head speed) in 60 specimens and the microhardness of the surface was expressed by Vickers Hardness Number(VHN) in 30 specimens. The curing depth was evaluated comparing the different values of upper and lower VHN according to irradiation time and thickness for the light source polymerization in 60 specimens. The temperature rising during photopolymerization was observed by the temperature change with thermocouple sensitizer beneath 40 specimens at the argon laser for 10 seconds and visible light 40 seconds irradiation. The polymerization shinkage was evaluated by calculating the decrease of % volume by using a dilatometer in 30 specimens. The results were as follows ; 1. In the case of compressive strength, the argon laser polymerization groups were higher than visible light group in Z-100 (p<0.05). In Dyract, the argon laser 5 seconds group did not show a significant difference with the visible light 40 seconds group. The argon laser 10 seconds group showed the markedly low value when compared with other groups (p<0.05) 2. In microhardness, Z-100 was better than Dyract when comparing by VHNs (p<0.05); however, there was not a significant difference between two materials in the visible light 40 seconds group and the argon laser 10 seconds group. 3. In the study of curing depth, Z-100 showed the consistent polymerization in argon laser irradiation because there was no difference in the VHN decrease according to the thickness change. Over the thickness control, the results did not show a significant difference between visible light and argon laser group in Z-100; however, in the case of Dyract, the visible light 40 seconds group was better than the argon laser groups(p<0.05). 4. There was a significant difference between the two materials in temperature rising during polymerization (p<0.05), but not a significant difference between irradiation times, 5. There was not a significant difference between the two materials in polymerization shrink age. The argon laser 5 seconds group was smaller than the other groups (p<0.05). It could be concluded that Z-100 polymerization was recommended to use the argon laser for reduction of the irradiation time while Dyract was recommended to use the visible light polymerization.
Keywords: composite | compomer | argon laser | visible light | polymerization
Editorial Office
Seoul National University, Dental Hospital, B1-166 101, Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744
Tel. +82-70-4145-8875,    Fax. +82-2-745-8875   E-mail : kapd59@kapd.org

Copyright© Korean Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. All right reserved.                powerd by m2community
About |  Browse Articles |  Current Issue |  For Authors and Reviewers