Ogisu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 45-53.

Effect of convergent light-irradiation on microtensile bondstrength of resin composite to dentin
Shinichiro Ogisu, DDS,a Ryuzo Kishikawa, DDS, PhD,a Alireza Sadr, DDS, PhD,bKazunari Matoba, BEng,c Norimichi Inai, DDS, PhD,d Masayuki Otsuki, DDS, PhD,aand Junji Tagami, DDS, PhDa,bab

Cariology and Operative Dentistry, Department of Restorative Sciences, Graduate School, Global
Center of Excellence (GCOE) Program; International Research Center for Molecular Science in Toothcand Bone Diseases, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Department of Research anddDevelopment, J. Morita Mfg. Corp., Kyoto, and Medical Office, Welfare Division, Minister’s Secretariat,
The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan, Tokyo, Japan
Purpose: This study investigated the effects of curing light convergence and irradiation distance on the
microtensile bond strength of resin composite to dentin using three light emitted diode (LED) light-curing units.
Materials and Methods: Three light curing units were investigated in this study; Flash Lite (FL), Pencure (PN),
and an experimental light-curing hand-piece developed for Dentaport ZX (DP), which was designed to emit
convergent light. The light intensity of each unit was measured at irradiation distances up to 10 mm. For bondstrength test, bonding area was demarcated on prepared dentin using black plastic rings, in which a self-etchingadhesive and a resin composite (Clearfil Liner Bond IIΣ and Clearfil Photo Core) were light-cured at different
distances (2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 mm). After 24 hours storage in 37ºC water, the specimens were sectioned into
beams. Microtensile bond strength was then measured and failure modes were observed.
Results: The light intensity of all units significantly decreased with increasing irradiation distance. DP showeda smaller range of decrease, significantly higher intensity values at irradiation distances over 2 mm andsignificantly higher bond strengths at 8 and 10 mm compared to FL and PN (p<0.05). Percentage of cohesive
failures in dentin decreased at 8 and 10 mm for FL and PN. Irradiation distance did not significantly affect lightcuring performance of DP.
Conclusion: Convergent light-irradiation was effective in maintaining adequate light intensity and bond strength
as the irradiation distance increased. (Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 45-53.)
Key Words: irradiation distance, light intensity, microtensile bond strength.

Introduction
Advances in the light curing technology have revolutionized adhesive dentistry. Various light curing units(LCUs) have been developed using quartz-tungsten-halogen (QTH) bulbs, light emitted diodes (LEDs),
argon-ion laser devices, and xenon plasma arc lamps as the light source.1,2 Factors associated with the light andcomposite, affect the polymerization degree of resin composite. Light-related ones include irradiance, spectral
distribution, exposure time, and light dispersion.3 The required time for irradiation depends on the light intensityof the LCUs.4 On the composite side, shade, translucency, photoinitiator system, matrix and filler characteristics
affect depth and degree of cure.5 Attenuation of light, deep in the composite, affects the degree of conversion ofcarbon double bonds (C=C), resulting in poor mechanical properties and also low bond strength to teeth.6-8
In order to increase depth of cure and decrease the irradiation time, manufacturers have made efforts including
modification of the light-guide design or raising the power output from the light source.9 However, it has beenreported that regardless of the type of LCU used, light intensity decreases as the distance between the tip andirradiated surface increases, and as it passes through the material.10-12 The design of the light-emitting tip and thelight-guide can have a spectacular influence on the light beam characteristics, focusing effect, or dispersion of
the emitted light.
This study aimed at evaluating the effect of an experimental LCU on the intensity of light and bond strengthof resin to dentin at different irradiation distances. It was hypothesized that by altering the structure of the LCU
to decrease light diffusions, it would be possible to maintain high light intensity and high dentin bond strength45

Ogisu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 45-53.

when the irradiation distance increased.

Materials and Methods
Light curing units
Three LED LCUs were used in this study (Table 1): Flash Lite 1001 (FL, Discus Dental, Culver City, CA, USA),
Pencure (PN, J. Morita Mfg. Corp., Kyoto, Japan), and an experimental light-curing hand-piece developed for
Dentaport ZX (DP), which was designed to emit convergent light (J. Morita Mfg. Corp.). Figure 1 presents aschematic of the light emitting tip for each of the LCUs. The wavelengths of all LCUs were measured using aspectrometer (USR-40V-01, Ushio, Japan). Light emission images were also obtained by projecting the light ofeach curing unit parallel across the surface of a flat black paper. Images were captured with a digital camera(Cyber-shot DSC-T70, Sony, Tokyo, Japan), at identical exposure and distance settings for each unit.13
Table 1.

LED light curing units used in this study.

Light curing unit
(Abbreviation)Type

Tip diameter(mm)

Intensity(mW/cm2)

Flash Lite 1001 (FL)Blue LED

8.0

600

Discus Dental, CA, USA

Pencure (PN)

Blue LED

9.0

600

J. Morita Mfg. Corp., Kyoto,Japan

Experimental
Dentaport ZX (DP)Blue LED

10.5

600

J. Morita Mfg. Corp.

Fig. 1.

Manufacturer

Fig. 2.

Fig. 1. Schematic structures of LCUs used in this study.
(a) Conventional LCU; Lenses and metal reflective mirrors at the tip, conduct the light towards the target.
(b) DP; The metal reflective mirrors have been eliminated from the structure, and a combination of two lenses
composed of transparent polymer resin materials has been incorporated to concentrate the irradiation light.
Fig. 2. The setup for measuring the intensity of the three LCUs at irradiation distances up to 10 mm.
A, Hand-held radiometer; B, Light curing unit; C, Measured stand for the light curing unit.

Light intensity measurements at different distances
The light intensity of the three LCUs was measured using a spectroradiometer (Model 100 Optilux
Radiometer; Sybron-Kerr, West Collins Orange, CA, USA). The distance of the light tip from the sensor of theradiometer was increased in 1 mm increments from 0 to 10 mm. The light intensity of each LCU was measured
three times at each distance (Fig. 2).

46

Ogisu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 45-53.

Microtensile bond strength test
The procedure for microtensile bond test are schematically illustrated in Fig. 3. The restorative materials usedin this study were a self-etching adhesive system (Clearfil Liner Bond IIΣ, Kuraray Medical, Tokyo, Japan) anda light-cured core buildup composite (Clearfil Photo Core, Kuraray Medical) (Table 2).

Fig. 3. Schematic showing the case of microtensile sample preparation for 6 mm irradiation distance subgroup.
(a) Flat dentin surface were prepared on human third molars. (b) A plastic ring 2 mm in height and 8 mm indiameter was placed on the dentin surface. (c) The surface was treated with the adhesive. (d) Two plastic rings
were added and the surface was irradiated for 20 s with the light curing unit. Irradiation distance was 6 mm. (e)The two rings on top were removed and composite was placed on the bonding resin by means of a bulk filling
technique. The thickness of the resin composite was approximately 2 mm. (f) Two plastic rings were added again
and the surface irradiated for 40 s. Irradiation distance was 6 mm. (g) All the plastic rings were removed and thespecimen was cut into beams with bonded surface area of 7 mm x7 mm. (h) Microtensile bond test at a crosshead
speed of 1 mm/min.

Table 2. Materials used in this study.
Material

Clearfil Liner
Bond IIΣ

Clearfil PhotoCore

Composition
Batch No.
Bonding system
Primer A: MDP, HEMA, water,
00141B
photoinitiator
Primer B: HEMA, water, photoinitiator
00139B
Bond A: MDP, dimethacrylates,
00230Amicrofiller, photoinitiator
Light-cured resin composite
Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, fillers,
02070Adl-camphoroquinone

Manufacturer

Kuraray Medical,
Tokyo, Japan

Kuraray Medical

MDP, 10-methacryloyloxydecyl di-hydrogen phosphate; HEMA, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate;
Bis-GMA, bisphenol A diglycidyl ether dimethacrylate; TEGDMA, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate.

Forty-five non-carious extracted human third molars were used in this study, the individuals’ informed
consent was obtained under a protocol approved by the Institutional Review Board of Tokyo Medical and Dental
University (TMDU). The teeth were randomly distributed into three groups, based on the LCUs. After theocclusal third of each tooth was removed using a low-speed diamond saw (Isomet, Buhler, Lake Bluff, IL, USA),the dentin was ground using 600-grit Si-C papers to expose a flat dentin surface. The bonding area was47

Ogisu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 45-53.

demarcated on the prepared dentin surface of each tooth using a black opaque plastic ring, 2 mm in height and 8
mm in bore diameter. The dentin surface was conditioned with the primer agent for 30 s and thoroughly air
dried. Then the bonding agent (Bond A) was applied to the primed dentin and air spread. In each group, there
were five subgroups according to the irradiation distances of 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 mm. During irradiation of theadhesive, the tip of the LCU was held at the desired distance from dentin surface by adding plastic rings on the
top of the first ring (e.g. no additional ring for 2 mm and two additional rings for 6 mm irradiation distancesubgroups). The adhesive was irradiated for 20 s using the corresponding LCU for each sample.
After polymerization of adhesive, plastic rings on top of the first one were removed and the composite wasplaced on the bonding resin by means of a bulk filling technique, pressed flat using a plastic matrix strip and a
glass slide and light-cured for 40 s. The thickness of the composite was approximately 2 mm, regardless of theirradiation distance. Using the plastic rings again, LCU tip was held at the same distance for resin composite asthat for the adhesive in each subgroup. After all the rings were removed, the specimens were stored in water at
37ºC for 24 hours, and then vertically cross-sectioned perpendicular to the bonded surface to obtain beams withbonded area dimensions of approximately 0.7 mm ×0.7 mm, using the diamond saw, under water cooling.
The beams were fixed by their ends to the microtensile testing jig of a universal testing machine (EZ test,
Shimadzu Co., Kyoto, Japan) with a cyanoacrylate adhesive (Model Repair II Blue, Sankin Industry Co., Tokyo,
Japan) and tested at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min.
Failure mode analysis
After the bond test, the fractured surfaces were observed using a confocal laser scanning electron microscope(CLSM, 1LM21, Lasertec Corp., Tokyo, Japan). According to the observation, fracture modes were classified
into four categories as follow: cohesive failure in dentin (CD), adhesive failure at the interface between resin anddentin (A), cohesive failure in resin (CR), and a mixed failure (M).
Statistical analysis
The experimental data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software package (ver. 11, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL,
USA). The light-intensity data and bond strength data were separately analyzed by two-way analysis of variance(ANOVA). The two factors analyzed were irradiation distance and LCU. Afterwards, pair-wise comparisonswere performed using Bonferroni tests for subgroups within each group and among similar subgroups (at each
irradiation distance) between groups (significance level p<0.05).

Results
Light characteristics
Figure 4 presents results of the spectrometry. All the LCUs showed similar emission spectra ranging from
420 to 520 nm, with the intensity peak around 470 nm. The digital camera images of the lateral projection
patterns are shown in Fig. 5 and the light intensity values measured at each irradiation distance (Table 3) aregraphically presented in Fig. 6. Two-way ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between the two factors of
distance and LCU type. All the units showed a similar light intensity of 600 mW/cm2 at the light curing tip(irradiation distance: 0). However, pair-wise comparisons showed that at other irradiation distances, there weresignificant differences between groups, with the experimental unit DP consistently showing the highest values.
In general, the light intensity within each group decreased with increased irradiation distance. DP maintained
the base light intensity for up to 3 mm, and showed the smallest range of changes in light intensity.

48

Ogisu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 45-53.

Wavelength (nm)Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.

Fig. 5.

Wavelength distribution of the LCU. The spectra were similar for all the three units.
Light dispersion images obtained by the digital camera. Compared to FL and PN, DP assembly appeared
to maintain a uniform irradiation and lower divergence angles of the outgoing light.

Table 3.

2

The relationships between intensity of LCUs and irradiation distance intensity in mW/cm .

Irradiation distance (mm)

FL

PN

DP

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

A

A, b

600 (0) A, c
600 (0) B, c
600 (0) c
590 (0) c, d575 (5) d535 (5)505 (5)485 (5)445 (15)400 (0)380 (0)600 (0)530 (10)470 (0)410 (5)360 (0)310 (0)270 (0)220 (10)200 (0) a
190 (10) C, a
170 (5)D600 (0)590 (0) B, b
560 (10)510 (0)480 (10)400 (0)330 (10)290 (10)220 (0)200 (0) C
180 (0) D

The numbers in parenthesis show standard deviations (SD). n=3. All values show mean (SD). Within the same row, means withthe same capital superscript letter are not significantly different (p>0.05). All the other combinations of means are significantly
different (p<0.05). Within the same column, means with the same lowercase superscript letter are not significantly different(p>0.05). All the other combinations of means are significantly different (p<0.05).

Irradiation distance (mm)Irradiation distance (mm)Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.

Fig. 7.

Light intensity in accordance with the irradiation distance. A significant liner relationship was found foreach unit. The line slope (i.e. decrease rate) was smallest for DP.
Microtensile bond strength in accordance with the irradiation distance. As the distance increased, thedrop in bond strength was the slightest for DP.

49

Ogisu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 45-53.

Microtensile bond strength
The microtensile bond strength of resin composite to dentin is shown in Table 4 (Fig. 7). Two-way ANOVA
revealed a significant interaction between the two factors. Pair-wise comparisons revealed that in case of FL
there were significant differences between 2 and 8 mm, 2 and 10 mm, 4 and 8 mm, 4 and 10 mm, 6 and 8 mm,
and 6 and 10 mm (p<0.05). For Pencure, there were significant differences between 2 and 8 mm, 2 and 10 mm,
4 and 8 mm, 4 and 10 mm, and 6 and 10 mm (p<0.05). On the other hand, in case of DP, there was no
significant difference in bond strength among any subgroups of different distances (p>0.05). At 2, 4, and 6 mm
irradiation distances, there were no statistically significant differences in the bond strength values produced by
the three units. However, for irradiation distances 8 and 10 mm, there were significant differences between thethree LCUs (p<0.05).
Table 4.

Mean (SD) of microtensile bond strength of resin composite in MPa.
Irradiation distance (mm)

LCU

2

4

6

8

10

FL

62.9 (15.7)A,a

61.2 (16.0)A,b

51.6 (12.4)A,c

34.1 (16.1)B,d

28.5 (12.1)B,g

PN

64.9 (14.4)C,a

64.7 (11.2)C,b

62.2 (19.7)C,D,c

49.3 (13.4)E,F,e

41.3 (14.4)F,hDP

66.6 (8.7)F,a

65.0 (10.9)F,b

64.1 (8.6)F,c

62.0 (12.4)F,f

61.9 (11.7)F,i

n=30. Within the same row, means with the same capital superscript letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).
Within the same column, means with the same lower case superscript letter are not statistically different (p<0.05).

Fig. 8.
Fig. 8.
Fig. 9.

Fig. 9.

Representative CLSM images of fractured surface on the dentin side after microtensile bond test at 10x
magnification. CD, cohesive failure in dentin; M, mixed failure; A, adhesive failure.
Percentage distribution of failure modes in the microtensile test for each LCU at different distances.
CD, cohesive failure in dentin; M, mixed failure; A, adhesive failure; CR, cohesive failure within resin.

Failure mode
Representative image of each mode is shown in Fig. 8, and the percentage distribution of failure modes arepresented in Fig. 9. The dominant observed failure mode in the current study was mixed. Only one of thespecimens showed complete cohesive fracture in resin (FL, 10 mm). While cohesive failure in dentin was
frequently observed for all subgroups of DP, the frequency of cohesive failures in dentin showed notable

50

Ogisu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 45-53.

decrease at 8 and 10 mm irradiation distances compared to the base irradiation distance for both FL and PN.

Discussion
This study investigated the effects of curing light convergence and irradiation distance of three LED LCUs on
the bond strength of resin to dentin. The experimental light-curing hand-piece in this study (DP) was based on
the Dentaport ZX device, designed to emit a convergent light. While the power density of the commerciallyavailable device both PN and DP is 1,000 mW/cm2, the power density of the unit in the current study was
adjusted to 600 mW/cm2 to match those of FL used in the experiment.
According to the inverse-square law, the apparent intensity of a light source should be proportional to theinverse of distance squared. However, it has been argued that the theory is true only with the light is emitted
from a non-coherent point source, and that the relationship between intensity and distance may be dependent on
characteristics of individual light sources.3 Moreover, this study used a handheld dental radiometer to measure
the intensity of light at different distances. While the results of light intensity measurement depend on several
factors related to the light-source and measurement device, it has been reported that a halogen handheld
radiometer can be appropriately used to determine and compare the clinically relevant irradiance of LED LCUs,
when the diameter of light guides are in the same range (as shown on Table 1).14
In the present study, as the distance from light-cure tip increased, the extent of decline in the light intensity
was the highest for FL, followed by PN and DP. Similar linear trends were observed between intensity anddistance for FL and PN (Fig. 6); in this fashion, at 10 mm the intensity values of these units decreased to about
28% (170 mW/cm2) and 30% (180 mW/cm2) of the initial value, respectively. Previous studies11,13,15-17 havedemonstrated a similar trend of the percentage reduction for various LCUs.
DP could maintain 84% of its maximum intensity at 6 mm irradiation distance. This unit showed significantly
higher light intensity at the distances over 2 mm, compared to FL and PN. Considering that all the three LCUs
have non-fiber-optic tips and equal initial output intensities in the study, these findings should be attributed tothe design of the tip. In FL and PN, lenses and metal reflective mirrors at the tip, conduct the light towards thetarget. In DP, however, the metal reflective mirrors have been eliminated from the structure, and a combinationof two lenses composed of transparent polymer resin materials has been incorporated. These lenses have ahigher light penetration rate and less distortion compared to the ordinary lenses, and their refractive index, shapeand positioning are adjusted so that total internal reflection would occur to conduct the light. The assembly oflenses is designed to collimate and slightly concentrate the light beams emitted from the LED source, aimed atdecreasing the dispersion and thus maintaining intensity of the light beam at the resin target area (Fig. 1). Lightdispersion images obtained using the digital camera, confirm that this assembly could maintain a uniform
irradiation and lower divergence angles of the outgoing light (Fig. 5).
In order to predict the actual effect of the LCU on the clinical performance of resin restorations, microtensile
bond strength was also investigated in the present study. The composite was placed on the flat dentin, toeliminate the effect of contraction stress due to the polymerization shrinkage of light-cure composites.18,19 The
composite material was a translucent single-shade resin, selected for this study because irradiation distance wasrelatively long in some groups.
The emission spectrum of the light has been suggested as a contributing factor in curing efficiency.20 The
LED LCUs in this study had similar irradiation wavelength (Fig. 4), thus factors associated with light intensity

51

Ogisu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 45-53.

should have affected the bonding efficiency of the resin materials.
At 8 mm and 10 mm, DP showed significantly higher bond strength values compared to FL and PN. It has
been reported that a minimum light intensity of 300 to 400 mW/cm2 is required to adequately cure a 1.5- to
2-mm increment of resin composite in the manufacturers’ recommended curing time.17 Results of the intensity
measurement and microtensile bond strength of the present study support that recommendation. Interestingly,
the first steep drops in the bond strength of FL (4-6 mm) and PN (6-8 mm) in Fig. 7, correspond to theirradiation distances where light intensity level fell below 350 mW/cm2 on Fig. 6 (5-6 mm for FL and 6-7 mm
for PN).
In an average occlusal preparation, the mean distance from the tip of a molar cusp to the pulpal floor is around
5 mm,13 the irradiation distance may in fact be greater than this, due to the cavity location, tooth position orexistence of proximal teeth. A previous study9 has reported that the gingival floor of a Class II preparation could
be as far as 6.3±0.7 mm away from the light tip. It should be noted that even prolonged curing times may not
guarantee higher curing depths when the light-intensity has degraded.21
Increased incidence of adhesive failures and the single case of complete cohesive failure in resin (CR)observed for FL at 10 mm may indicate inadequate polymerization of the resin. The lower degree of conversion
in monomers may leave uncured bonding resin, resulting in a weak bond to the tooth at the bottom of therestoration.22

Incomplete polymerization may also increase cytotoxicity23 and reduce the ultimate

hardness,2,10,24,25 elastic modulus,26 and increase wear and breakdown at the margins.27
In the clinical practice, deeper and larger cavities are being restored with direct resin composites, and theimportance of polymerization and adhesion at the deep cavity is evident. The clinician should be aware of theprobable performance level and potential limitations of the light-curing units in order to achieve the best resultswith adhesive restorations.
Acknowledgment
This work was partially supported by the grant from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Global Center of Excellence(GCOE) Program, International Research Center for Molecular Science in Tooth and Bone Diseases at Tokyo Medical and
Dental University.

References
1. Katahira N, Foxton RM, Inai N, Otsuki M, Tagami J. Comparison of PAC and QTH light sources on polymerization of resin
composites. Am J Dent 2004; 17: 113-7.
2. Hubbezoğlu I, Bolayir G, Doğan OM, Doğan A, Ozer A, Bek B. Microhardness evaluation of resin composites polymerized bythree different light sources. Dent Mater J 2007; 26: 845-53.
3. Aravamudhan K, Rakowski D, Fan PL. Variation of depth of cure and intensity with distance using LED curing lights. Dent
Mater 2006; 22: 988-94.
4. Sakaguchi RL, Douglas WH, Peters MG. Curing light performance and polymerization of composite restorative materials. J
Dent 1992; 20: 183-8.
5. Kramer N, Lohbauer U, Garcia-Godoy F, Frankenberger R. Light curing of resin-based composites in the LED era. Am J Dent
2008; 21: 135-42.
6. Watts DC, Amur O, Combe EC. Characteristics of visible-light-activated composites systems. Br Dent J 1984; 156: 209-15.
7. Warren K. An investigation into the micro hardness of a light cured composites when cured through varying thickness ofporcelain. J Oral Rehabil 1991; 17: 327-34.
8. Sadr A, Shimada Y, Tagami J. Effects of solvent drying time on micro-shear bond strength and mechanical properties of two
self-etching adhesive systems. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 1114-9.
9. Price RB, Derand T, Sedarous M, Andreou P, Loney RW. Effect of distance on the power density from two light guides. J
Esthet Dent 2000; 12: 320-7.
10. Rueggeberg FA, Caughman WF, Curtis JW, Davis HC. Factors affecting cure at depths within light-activated resin
composites. Am J Dent 1993; 6: 91-5.
11. Prati C, Chersoni S, Montebugnoli L, Montanari G. Effect of air, dentin and resin-based composite thickness on light intensity
reduction. Am J Dent 1999; 12: 231-4.
12. Yamauti M, Nikaido T, Ikeda M, Otsuki M, Tagami J. Microhardness and Young’s modulus of a bonding resin cured withdifferent curing units. Dent Mater J 2004; 23: 457-66.
13. Vandewalle KS, Roberts HW, Andus JL, Dunn WJ. Effect of light dispersion LED curing lights on resin composite

52

Ogisu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 45-53.

polymerization. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005; 17: 244-54.
14. Roberts HW, Vandewalle KS, Berzins DW, Chariton DG. Accuracy of LED and halogen radiometers using different lightsources. J Esthet Restor Dent 2006; 18: 214-22.
15. Pires JA, Cvitko E, Denehy GE, Swift EJ. Effects of curing tip distance on light intensity and composite resin microhardness.
Quintessence Int 1993; 24: 517-21.
16. Meyer GR, Ernst C, Willershausen B. Decrease in power output of new light-emitting diode (LED) curing devices withincreasing distance to filling surface. J Adhes Dent 2002; 4: 197-204.
17. Felix CA, Price RB. The effect of distance from light source on light intensity from curing lights. J Adhes Dent 2003; 5: 283-91.
18. Felizer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restration. J Dent Res
1987; 66: 1636-9.
19. Kishikawa R, Koiwa A, Chikawa H, Cho E, Inai N, Tagami J. Effect of cavity form on adhesion to cavity floor. Am J Dent 2005;
18: 311-4.
20. Nomoto R. Effect of light wavelength on polymerization of light-cured resins. Dent Mater J 1997; 16: 60-73.
21. Rode KM, Kawano Y, Turbino ML. Evaluation of curing light distance on resin composite microhardness and polymerization.
J Adhes Dent 2007; 32: 571-8.
22. O’Keefe KL, Powers JM. Adhesion of resin composite core materials to dentin. Int J Prosthodont 2001; 14: 451-6.
23. Caughman WF, Caughman GB, Shiflette RA. Correlation of cytotoxicity, filler loading and curing time of dental composite.
Biomaterials 1991; 12: 737-40.
24. Correr Sobrinho L, De Goes MF, Consani S, Sinhoreti MAC, Knowles JC. Correlation between light intensity and exposure
time on the hardness of composite resin. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2000; 11: 361-4.
25. Nayif MM, Nakajima M, Foxton RM, Tagami J. Effect of light irradiation time on the mechanical properties of two flowablecomposites with different initiation systems in bonded and unbonded cavities. Dent Mater J 2007; 26: 687-93.
26. Harris JS, Jacobsen PH, O’Doherty DM. The effect of curing light intensity and test temperature on the dynamic mechanicalproperties of two polymer composites. J Oral Rehabil 1999; 26: 635-9.
27. Ferracane JL, Mitchem JC, Condon JR, Todd R. Wear and marginal breakdown of composites with various degree of cure. J
Dent Res 1997; 76: 1508-16.

Correspondence to:
Dr. Shinichiro Ogisu
Cariology and Operative Dentistry, Department of Restorative Sciences, Graduate School,
Tokyo Medical and Dental University,
1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8549, Japan.
Fax: +81-3-5803-0195 E-mail: wagahaiwamyu3sai@yahoo.co.jp
Accepted November 7, 2009.

Copyright ©2009 by the International Chinese Journal of Dentistry.

53