Objectives: The use of LED light-curing units (LED LCUs) for polymerising resin-based composite restorations has become widespread throughout dentistry. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of clinical longitudinal studies that evaluate the comparative efficacy of LED-based polymerisation in direct posterior composite restorations. The aim of the present study was to investigate the performance of class I and II resin composite restorations for two successful composite restorative materials cured with LED versus halogen LCUs.
Methods: One hundred restorations were placed using the nano-filled composites Grandio® or Filtek™ Supremé. The following test groups were established: LED-Grandio® n = 23 (LG), LED-Filtek™ Supremé n = 21 (LS). As controls were used: Halogen-Grandio® n = 28 (HG), Halogen-Filtek™ Supremé n = 28 (HS). All restorations were evaluated according to the clinical criteria of the CPM index (C-criteria) at baseline and after 6, 12 and 36 months.
Results: After 12 and 36 months, there were no significant differences between restorations polymerised with LED or halogen light. At the end of the study, 97% of the restorations showed sufficient results regardless of the employed LCU or composite. Globally, after 36 months, 56% of all restorations were assessed with code 0 (excellent) and 41% with code 1 (acceptable). In detail, excellent results (code 0) among the criteria surface quality; marginal integrity and marginal discoloration were assigned in 72, 70 and 69%.
Conclusions: For the current limitations in the clinical trial design, the results showed that LED-polymerisation is appropriate to ensure clinical success of direct posterior resin composite restorations in a range of 3 years.
Clinical significance: The choice of LCU has no significant influence on the clinical performance of posterior direct resin composite restorations within 3 years of wear.
Keywords: Clinical evaluation; Composite; Filtek Supremé; Grandio; Halogen; LED; Posterior resin restorations.