Caracterização de fonte de luz única (mono e multiwave) para cimentação de cerâmica

Abstract

Purpose: this work is a qualitative study that aims to evaluate the degree of light transmittance on a ceramic blade (1mm) and the amount of light passing through it, reaching the top of different resin cements and the amount of light reaching the base of the different cements. Materials and methods: three types of resin cements were used, with different photoinitiators: camphoroquinone (Megalink Esthetic, Odontomega), APS system (Allcem Veneer, FGM) and ivocerin (Variolink Aesthetic LC, Ivoclar Vivadent). Thirty samples were prepared and divided into 6 groups (n=5). The resin cement samples were made in the shape of a central incisor (tooth 11) and photoactivated under a ceramic blade with a thickness of 1,0 mm. A photopolymerizer (LCU) was used that emits two types of light (mono and multiwave), only changing the tip (Radii Xpert, SDI). The profiles were examined beams of all groups with and without interposition of ceramic blade (1 mm) and cements. To obtain all images, the light beam was examined with the aid of a profile camera and different filters. To compare the radiant power emitted the integration time was analyzed until no pixel was saturated from the LCU more potent. For the characterization of the LCUs, a 60º holograpic diffuser screen was positioned and the images were captured through this filter, so this filter was removed and the ceramic veneer with and without cement. The images were collected using specific software. Results: the hotter it is the color; the more light is passing through. With the placement of the ceramic blade, the light pass drops about 40% of the total light with the monowave tip and about 30% with the multiwave tip. When interposing the different cements, the amount of light decreases to about 20% with the monowave tip and about 15% with the multiwave tip. Megalink cement allowed more light to pass through the tip monowave and the Variolink cement allowed more light to pass through with the multiwave tip. Conclusion: the placement of the ceramic blade changes the passage of ligth. In this way, it was observed that the different tips showed different behaviours both at the top and at the base of the cement. The megalink cement allowed more light to pass with the monowave tip, while the variolink cement allowed more light to pass with the multiwave tip.