Next Article in Journal
Numerical Simulation of Failure Modes of Solid Propellants with Internal Cavities Under Various Loading Conditions
Previous Article in Journal
Functional Characterization and Antifungal Activity of Insect-Derived Chitinases Expressed in Pichia pastoris
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Polymers
Volume 18
Issue 3
10.3390/polym18030403
polymers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Additional Light Curing on Color Stability and Degree of Conversion of Mono-Shade Resin Composites

by
Fatih Bedir
1,*,
Muhammet Karadaş
1,
Makbule Gamze Atıcı Bedir
2 and
Alper Özdoğan
3
1
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize 53020, Türkiye
2
Rize Oral and Dental Health Center, Rize 53020, Türkiye
3
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Atatürk University, Erzurum 25240, Türkiye
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2026, 18(3), 403; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18030403
Submission received: 12 January 2026 / Revised: 28 January 2026 / Accepted: 29 January 2026 / Published: 3 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Polymer Composites and Nanocomposites)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study aims to examine the effect of additional light curing on the color stability and degree of conversion (DoC) of mono-shade resin composites cured using different light curing units and irradiation levels. Sixty-six disk-shaped samples were prepared for each of the mono-shade (Omnichroma/OC, Vittra APS Unique/VU) and multi-shade resin (Clearfil Majesty ES-2/CME) composites. The samples were randomly divided into three groups and cured for 20 s according to: (1) QTH at 800 mW/cm2 (16 J/cm2), (2) LED at 1000 mW/cm2 (20 J/cm2), and (3) 1400 mW/cm2 (28 J/cm2). After polishing, half of the samples in each group were exposed to additional light curing. Color parameters were measured at baseline and after 28 days of immersion in a coffee solution. CIEDE2000 color (∆E00) and Whiteness Index (ΔWID) changes were used to assess color stability. ∆E00 and ΔWID were compared with the perceptibility and acceptability threshold. Mono-shade composites exhibited lower DoC with higher ΔE00 and ΔWID changes compared to the multi-shade composite. Mono-shade composites showed clinically unacceptable color and whiteness changes. Additional light curing performed using the same protocol both before and after polishing did not contribute to the color/whiteness stability and DoC of either mono-shade or multi-shade resin composites.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Nowadays, increased esthetic expectations have significantly increased the use of tooth-colored resin composites [1]. To obtain an esthetically compatible resin composite restoration, it is often necessary to use multiple resin composites with different shade options to match the color of the natural tooth. The use of resin composites with the layering technique further complicates an already complex treatment process, prolongs the treatment time, and increases the overall cost [2]. To overcome these challenges, mono-shade dental resin composites containing nanofiller particles have been developed. Thanks to the chameleon effect, these materials provide better color matching with the surrounding tooth structure, eliminating the need to use multiple dental resin composites in different shades [3,4]. Thus, without the need to determine the shade of tooth in aesthetic restorations, a restoration compatible with the shade of the tooth can be made in a short time by using mono-shade dental resin composites [5].
Despite advancements, dental resin composites still have significant disadvantages such as polymerization shrinkage, bulk fracture, and discoloration [6]. Discoloration in dental resin composites can occur due to both extrinsic and intrinsic factors [7,8]. Inadequate curing, temperature changes, water absorption, adsorption of colorants in food and beverages, poor oral hygiene, and smoking are responsible for extrinsic discoloration [8], while resin composite properties such as filler particles, the resin matrix, and photoinitiators are responsible for intrinsic discoloration [7,8,9]. Since inadequate color stability can negatively affect treatment success and patient satisfaction, it can also reduce the lifespan of esthetic resin composite restorations and cause the dentist to decide to replace the restoration [10].
To activate the photoinitiator in dental resin composites and create a highly cross-linked structure, it is necessary to apply light with adequate energy intensity and the appropriate wavelength [11]. Insufficient curing can lead to an increased amount of residual monomers, resulting in compromised biocompatibility, increased water absorption, and the deterioration of mechanical and optical properties [12].
A study in the literature reported that additional light curing after polishing reduced discoloration in various resin composites (nanofill, nanohybrid, microhybrid, and bulk-fill) [13]. However, whether this is related to the degree of conversion (DoC) of the dental resin composite is not clearly explained by the authors. However, it is also curious whether the color stability of mono-shade composites, which have been reported to have lesser color stability than multi-shade composites in previous studies [5,14], will increase with additional light curing after polishing.
This study aimed to examine the effect of additional light curing after polishing on the color stability and DoC of mono-shade composite resins cured with light-emitting diode (LED) and quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) light units at different light irradiance levels. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that additional light curing after polishing would not significantly affect (1) the color stability and (2) the DoC of mono-shade composites.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This study was designed with 18 groups based on the combination of three factors: (composite resins: three levels; light curing methods: three levels; additional light curing: two levels). The study groups are shown in Figure 1. The ∆E00 and WID indexes of the samples were measured using a spectrophotometer, and the DoC was assessed by attenuated total reflection–Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR; Spectrum 100, PerkinElmer, Waltham, MA, USA).

2.2. Samples Preparation

A total of 198 disk-shaped samples (n = 66/per group; diameter = 6 mm, and thickness = 2 mm) were obtained from the three composite resins [Clearfil Majesty ES-2/CME (Kuraray Noritake, Tokyo, Japan), Omnichroma/OC (Tokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan), and Vittra APS Unique/VU (FGM, Joinville, SC, Brazil)]. Table 1 provides details on the composition of the materials used in this study. The teflon mold and transparent mylar strip were positioned onto a glass slide, and then composite resins were placed in a single layer in a teflon mold. The composite resin was placed in a teflon mold and compressed with another transparent mylar strip and a glass slide to prevent the formation of an oxygen inhibition layer and to obtain a smooth, clinically relevant surface. The samples were cured using two light curing units (QTH, BlueLuxer M-835, Monitex, Taiwan; LED, VALO Cordless, Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA) via three different methods (n = 66): (1) QTH at 800 mW/cm2 for 20 s (16 J/cm2), (2) LED at 1000 mW/cm2 for 20 s (20 J/cm2), and (3) 1400 mW/cm2 for 20 s (28 J/cm2). The light output power of the light curing units was checked using a radiometer (Hilux, Benlioğlu Dental Inc., Ankara, Turkey).
The finishing and polishing process utilized a two-step system containing diamond particles (Clearfil Twist Dia, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Okayama, Japan). The finishing and polishing of the composite resins were performed under water cooling at 10,000 rpm for 20 s to prevent microcracks [5]. The samples were then randomly divided into two groups. Half of the samples were re-cured with a light-curing unit, while the other half were not. Additional light curing was applied for the same duration with the same light-curing unit as at the beginning. After that, the samples were cleaned in an ultrasonic cleaner for 5 min and then kept in 37 °C distilled water for 24 h [15]. The preparation of the samples, the finishing/polishing processes, and the additional light curing were performed by a single researcher and always on the same side of the samples.

2.3. Color Differences and Whiteness Index

Baseline color measurements for each sample in the group (n = 8) were obtained using a spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade Advance, Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany). The spectrophotometer was calibrated before each measurement. For color assessment, the probe was positioned perpendicular to the center of each sample, and measurements were made on a gray background (Munsell N7 neutral gray color) [16,17]. The color of each sample was measured three times, and the average color coordinates of the three measurements were recorded [16,17]. A single researcher carried out the measurements using standardized D65 light illumination (Judge QC, X-Rite, Grand Rapids, MI, USA). Following the baseline color measurement, the samples were immersed in a coffee solution (Nescafe Classic Single Bag, Nestlé, Girona, Spain) at 37 °C for 28 days [18]. Freshly prepared coffee solution was used daily to prevent bacterial or yeast contamination. The coffee solution was obtained by dissolving 2 g of coffee powder in 200 mL of boiled water without adding sugar or milk, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Before the samples were immersed in the coffee solution, the solution temperature was 37 °C. The samples were immersed in the coffee solution for 28 days, then washed with water and air dried. The color of each sample was then measured again using a spectrophotometer, as described above. The color difference was calculated according to the CIEDE2000 (∆E00) formula provided below [19,20]:
Δ E 00 ° = Δ L ′ K L S L 2 + Δ C ′ K C S C 2 + Δ H ′ K H S H 2 + R T Δ C ′ K C S C   Δ H ′ K H S H
where ∆L′ is the difference in lightness, ∆C′ is the difference in chroma, and ∆H′ is the difference in hue. SL, SC, and SH are weighting functions to adjust the total color difference for variation in the location of the color difference pair in L′, a′, and b′ coordinates. The parametric factors KL, KC, and KH, are correction terms for experimental conditions. And, finally, RT is a rotation function that accounts for the interaction between chroma and hue differences in the blue region [19,20]. KL, KC, and KH were set as 1.0 for this study. The color difference was analyzed against 50:50% perceptibility and acceptability thresholds (PT = 0.81 ∆E00 units and AT = 1.77 ∆E00 units) [21,22].
The whiteness index for dentistry (WID), which is based on CIELAB and has a linear formulation, was obtained according to the following formula [23]:
W I D = 0.55 L * − 2.32 a * − 1.100 b *
Lower WID values, including negative values, refer to darker samples and higher WID values to whiter samples. Differences in WID (ΔWID) were obtained by calculating the difference between the initial and final measurements [24]. ΔWID was analyzed against 50:50% perceptibility and acceptability thresholds (WPT = 0.61 ∆WID units and WAT = 2.90 ∆WID units) [23]. In line with previous studies, the perceptibility (WPT) and acceptability (WAT) threshold values were applied to the absolute values of ΔWID (|ΔWID|) [25].

2.4. Degree of Conversion

The DoC of the samples (n = 3) was performed using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR; Spectrum 100, PerkinElmer, Waltham, MA, USA) with an attenuated total reflection (ATR) accessory with diamond crystal. The samples were placed on an ATR crystal holder to completely cover the crystal surface. All spectra were collected over the range of 650 to 4000 cm−1, with 32 scans and a spectral resolution of 4 cm−1. The ATR-FTIR data were analyzed using OriginPro 2021 software (OriginLab Corp., Northampton, MA, USA).
After standard baseline correction, the DoC was calculated by determining the ratio of the peak height absorbance intensity of aliphatic C=C at 1638 cm−1 to that of aromatic C=C at 1608 cm−1 in both uncured and cured resin composite samples, using the formula below [26]:
DoC ( % ) = 1 − 1638   cm − 1 / 1608   cm − 1 peak heights cured 1638   cm − 1 / 1608   cm − 1 peak heights uncured × 100
However, for some resin composites that do not contain Bis-GMA (OC and VU), the carbonyl (C=O) group with a peak at 1716 cm−1 was used as the internal standard due to the absence of a benzene ring structure, and the DoC was calculated using the following formula [27]:
DoC ( % ) = 1 − 1638   cm − 1 / 1716   cm − 1 peak heights cured 1638   cm − 1 / 1716   cm − 1 peak heights uncured × 100

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The most recent guidance on color measurements issued by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO/TR 28642:2016) [22] evaluated color differences using comparisons with 50:50% thresholds. Data from ∆E00, ∆WID, and DoC were statistically analyzed using the three-way ANOVA (composite resin, light curing method, and additional light curing), and multiple comparisons were calculated by Tukey’s post hoc test. The data were analyzed with SPSS software (v29.0, IBM., Chicago, IL, USA). The statistical significance level was accepted as 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Color Differences (ΔE00) and Whiteness Index (ΔWID)

Table 2 and Table 3 present the means and standard deviations of color (∆E00) and whiteness change (∆WID) for the resin composites. A three-way ANOVA revealed that the resin composite (p = 0.000 and p = 0.000, respectively) and light curing method (p = 0.027 and p = 0.000, respectively) significantly affected ΔE00 and ∆WID, while the additional light curing (p = 0.066 and p = 0.209, respectively) did not significantly affect ΔE00 and ∆WID. Double and triple interactions between factors also did not statistically affect ΔE00 and ∆WID significantly (p > 0.05).
Regardless of the additional light curing, in all light curing methods, mono-shade resin composites (OC and VU) showed statistically significant greater color (∆E00) and whiteness (∆WID) changes compared to multi-shade composite resin (CME) (p = 0.000). Both mono-shade (OC and VU) and multi-shade (CME) resin composites exhibited significantly more extensive color and whiteness changes when cured with a QTH light-curing unit at 800 mW/cm2 for 20 s, regardless of additional light curing (p < 0.05).
Regardless of the light curing method, mono-shade composites (OC and VU) showed significantly greater color (∆E00) and whiteness (∆WID) changes compared to the multi-shade composite (CME) under additional light curing (p = 0.000). Statistically significant changes in ∆E00 and ∆WID were observed among single light-cured resin composites (p < 0.05). CME showed the lowest color (∆E00) and whiteness (∆WID) change, while VU showed the highest change (Figure 2).
All the experimental groups showed a clinically perceptible color change above the PT value. Furthermore, all groups, except for the CME group, cured with additional light at 1400 mW/cm2 for 20 s exhibited clinically unacceptable color changes above the AT (Figure 3). Similarly, all groups showed perceptible whiteness changes above the WPT. However, only the CME with additional light curing at 1000 mW/cm2 and 1400 mW/cm2 for 20 s exhibited clinically acceptable whiteness changes below the WAT (Figure 4).

3.2. Degree of Conversion (DoC)

The representative ATR-FTIR spectra of both multi-shade and mono-shade resin composites before and after polymerization are shown in Figure 5.
Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of DoC (%) for resin composites. A three-way ANOVA revealed that the resin composite (p = 0.001) significantly affected the DoC, while the light curing method (p = 0.661) and additional light curing (p = 0.209) did not significantly affect the DoC. The double and triple interactions between the factors were not statistically significant (p > 0.05) except for the double interaction between resin composite and light curing method (p = 0.014).
Regardless of additional light curing, VU cured at 800 mW/cm2 for 20 s exhibited the lowest DoC, while CME cured at 1400 mW/cm2 for 20 s showed the highest value. Regardless of the light curing method, both in the single light curing and additional light curing, mono-shade composites (OC and VU) were found to exhibit a significantly lower DoC compared to the multi-shade composite (CME) (Figure 2). However, no statistically significant difference was found between mono-shade composites (OC and VU).

4. Discussion

Recent advancements in dental restorative materials have led to the introduction of mono-shade resin composites, which simplify the layering technique and reduce the need for tooth color selection [5]. Both mono- and multi-shade resin composites may lose their initial color and whiteness over time [28]. High color stability in dental resin composites is important for the longevity of dental restorations [29]. Especially, anterior esthetic restorations with lesser color stability create aesthetic dissatisfaction in patients and negatively affect long-term treatment success [30,31]. Moreover, this condition is also considered by clinicians as an indication of the material’s aesthetic inadequacy [5]. For these reasons, investigating the color stability and the DoC of mono-shade resin composites cured using different light-curing units and irradiance levels, and subjected to the same additional curing protocol after polishing, will contribute to a better understanding of their clinical performance [32].
In this study, two null hypotheses were tested. The first was that additional light curing would not affect the color stability of mono-shade composites; the second was that additional light curing would not affect the DoC of mono-shade composites. According to the results of this study, the application of additional light curing did not affect both the color and whiteness stability, and the DoC of mono-shade composites. These results led to the acceptance of both null hypotheses.
In this study, mono-shade resin composites (OC and VU) showed greater color and whiteness changes than the multi-shade composite (CME), regardless of the light curing method and additional light curing. Consistent with this study, many studies in the literature have shown that mono-shade resin composites show more discoloration than multi-shade resin composites when exposed to various discolorants [5,14]. This finding is concerning for mono-shade resin composites, which are specifically developed to achieve rapid and effective color matching with the tooth being restored. The reason for the lesser color stability of mono-shade composites may be due to factors affecting color stability such as the chemical structure of the monomers in the resin matrices, the concentrations of monomers, photoinitiators, activators, and inhibitors, and the size and volume of inorganic fillers [7,8,9,29].
Composites with more hydrophilic resin matrices, due to their higher water sorption capacity, exhibit lesser color stability [33,34]. Resin matrices with Bis-GMA as the main monomer shows lower water absorption than resin matrices containing TEG-DMA, but higher water absorption than resin matrices containing UDMA and Bis-EMA [4]. Therefore, the type and proportion of monomers in the resin matrix has a direct impact on the color stability of resin composites as they affect water absorption [35]. Especially, the small and hydrophilic molecular structure of TEG-DMA exhibits higher mobility in water environments [36,37]. The greater color and whiteness changes observed in mono-shade resin composites in this study can be explained by the presence of the TEG-DMA monomer. Although the manufacturer states that VU is composed of a mixture of methacrylate monomers, most studies indicate that VU contains TEG-DMA and UDMA, similarly to OC [5,38]. Supporting this, no difference was found between mono-shade composites in terms of color and whiteness stability in this study. Additionally, only the multi-shade resin composite (CME), which showed greater color and whiteness stability in this study, contains Bis-GMA. The presence of Bis-GMA enhances the cross-link density of the polymer network [39,40], thereby improving both the mechanical properties and the color stability of the resin composite [41]. However, most manufacturers do not fully disclose the composition of resin composites. Therefore, it is very difficult to precisely identify the component responsible for the differences among resin composites [42].
As the amount of inorganic filler increases, the amount of the resin matrix decreases and therefore water absorption decreases [24]. Therefore, higher inorganic filler content in resin composites is associated with greater color stability [16]. However, in the present study, mono-shade resin composites (OC and VU), which have a higher inorganic filler volume than the multi-shade resin composite (CME), exhibited lesser color stability. The authors may explain this finding by suggesting that water absorption can still occur in composites with high inorganic filler content and low resin matrix volume. Therefore, hydrolytic degradation at the resin matrix and inorganic filler interface and, consequently, discoloration of the resin composite may occur [24,43,44].
It has been reported that total radiant exposure (J/cm2) per unit area is more important than light irradiance (mW/cm2) for the adequate curing of dental resin composites [45]. In the literature, there are different studies reporting the radiant exposure value required for the ideal curing of resin composites with a thickness of 2 mm as 12–24 J/cm2 [46], 10–11 J/cm2 [47,48], 16 J/cm2 [49], and 21–24 J/cm2 [50]. In this study, mono- and multi-shade resin composites were exposed to radiant exposure of 16 J/cm2 with a QTH light unit, and to 20 J/cm2 and 28 J/cm2 with LED light unit. As a result, a greater color and whiteness change was observed in the light curing method at 800 mW/cm2 for 20 s (16 J/cm2) regardless of resin composite and additional light curing. However, the light curing method did not affect the DoC of resin composites. Contrary to the present study, most studies that have investigated or not investigated the DoC have reported a close correlation between a higher DoC and greater color stability [13,41]. However, contrary to the current literature, the authors believe that the DoC of composites is not the only and/or the most important factor affecting color change. Lower radiant exposure may be sufficient to initiate cross-linking between monomers, yet it can also result in a less cross-linked, more linear polymer structure [51,52]. Such a polymer network is more susceptible to water sorption and pigment uptake, which may explain the increased discoloration observed despite acceptable DoC values [51,52].
The lack of improvement in the DoC following additional light curing may be explained by polymer network saturation and vitrification phenomena [53]. Once the initial curing phase provides sufficient radiant exposure to initiate extensive cross-linking, further monomer mobility becomes severely restricted due to the rapid increase in viscosity and formation of a rigid polymer network [54,55]. This vitrified state limits the diffusion of unreacted radicals and residual monomers, thereby preventing further DoC improvements, despite additional energy input [54,55]. Moreover, finishing and polishing procedures are known to effectively remove the superficial oxygen-inhibited layer, which is typically characterized by a lower degree of polymerization [56]. Therefore, additional light curing applied after polishing may have limited capacity to enhance the DoC, as the remaining polymer matrix is already highly cross-linked and diffusion controlled. These results suggest that once a critical radiant exposure threshold is achieved during initial curing, additional light curing using the same protocol does not result in measurable increases in the DoC of the resin composites evaluated in this study.
According to the manufacturer, the advanced polymerization system (APS) in VU is a combination of multiple photoinitiators, including camphorquinone [57]. Therefore, VU containing APS is expected to be more photosensitive than CME containing only camphorquinone. In contrast, VU demonstrated a lower DoC compared to CME. The manufacturer did not provide information on the photoinitiator content of OC. However, no significant difference was found between the DoC of the two mono-shade composites in this study. This finding suggests that polymerization efficiency is not governed solely by the complexity or number of photoinitiators, but rather by a combination of factors related to initiator chemistry, resin matrix composition, and light–material interactions. One possible explanation is a spectral mismatch between the emission profile of the light-curing units used and the absorption characteristics of the individual initiators within the APS. While multi-photoinitiator formulations are designed to spectral sensitivity, the specific absorption maxima and relative concentrations of these initiators are not fully disclosed by manufacturers, which may limit their effective activation under certain curing conditions [58]. In addition, increased initiator complexity may influence radical generation kinetics and polymer network development [59]. Excessive or heterogeneous radical production can promote early vitrification and restrict further monomer mobility, thereby limiting the extent of conversion despite adequate radiant exposure [59]. Furthermore, differences in the filler composition, translucency, and refractive index mismatch may affect light transmission within the composite, leading to greater light attenuation and reduced polymerization efficiency [60]. By contrast, the presence of Bis-GMA in CME may have contributed to higher cross-link density and more efficient polymer network formation [39]. Generally, these findings indicate that resin matrix composition and network-forming characteristics may play a more dominant role in determining final degree of conversion than photoinitiator system’s complexity alone.
The results of this study are, clinically, highly significant. In this study, mono-shade composites exhibited lesser color and whiteness stability as well as a lower DoC compared to multi-shade composites. In addition, the color and whiteness changes seen in mono-shade composites were clinically unacceptable. Furthermore, their tendency to become severely discolored over time suggests that these materials may require additional treatment in order to maintain their esthetic function. To overcome this issue, the additional light curing after polishing, which is an extra clinical procedure, showed no significant positive effect. Therefore, clinicians who wish to perform long-lasting anterior aesthetic restorations should consider the lesser color and whiteness stability of mono-shade composites and seek alternative methods of additional light curing after polishing in order to overcome this problem. In addition, in the present study, the same light curing protocol was applied both before and after the polishing procedure. It should be noted that the use of different additional light curing protocols in future studies may lead to different outcomes. Moreover, based on the results of this study, the high discoloration susceptibility of mono-shade composites appears to be primarily a material-related problem. Therefore, further research should be conducted to develop mono-shade resin composites that enable dental restorations to be performed without the need for color selection.

5. Conclusions

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, additional light curing performed using the same protocol both before and after polishing did not affect the color/whiteness stability and the DoC of both mono-shade and multi-shade resin composites. Mono-shade composites demonstrated lesser color and whiteness stability, as well as a lower DoC, compared to the multi-shade composite. In addition, the color and whiteness changes seen in mono-shade composites were clinically unacceptable. While the light curing method does not affect the DoC of resin composites, curing with a QTH unit at 800 mW/cm2 for 20 s has resulted in lesser color and whiteness stability in both mono- and multi-shade composites.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.B. and M.K.; methodology, F.B., M.K., M.G.A.B. and A.Ö.; formal analysis, F.B., M.K. and A.Ö.; investigation, F.B., M.G.A.B. and A.Ö.; data curation: F.B., M.G.A.B. and A.Ö.; writing—original draft preparation, F.B., M.K., M.G.A.B. and A.Ö.; writing—review and editing, F.B., M.K., M.G.A.B. and A.Ö.; supervision, F.B. and M.K.; and funding, F.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study has been supported by the Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Development Foundation (Grant number: 02025007021621).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Aminoroaya, A.; Neisiany, R.E.; Khorasani, S.N.; Panahi, P.; Das, O.; Madry, H.; Cucchiarini, M.; Ramakrishna, S. A review of dental composites: Challenges, chemistry aspects, filler influences, and future insights. Compos. Part B Eng. 2021, 216, 108852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. El-Rashidy, A.A.; Abdelraouf, R.M.; Habib, N.A. Effect of two artificial aging protocols on color and gloss of single-shade versus multi-shade resin composites. BMC Oral Health 2022, 22, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Iyer, R.S.; Babani, V.R.; Yaman, P.; Dennison, J. Color match using instrumental and visual methods for single, group, and multi-shade composite resins. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2021, 33, 394–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Trifkovic, B.; Powers, J.M.; Paravina, R.D. Color adjustment potential of resin composites. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 22, 1601–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ersöz, B.; Karaoğlanoğlu, S.; Oktay, E.A.; Aydin, N. Resistance of Single-shade Composites to Discoloration. Oper. Dent. 2022, 47, 686–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jandt, K.D.; Sigusch, B.W. Future perspectives of resin-based dental materials. Dent. Mater. 2009, 25, 1001–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Barutcigil, Ç.; Yıldız, M. Intrinsic and extrinsic discoloration of dimethacrylate and silorane based composites. J. Dent. 2012, 40, e57–e63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Reis, A.F.; Vestphal, M.; Amaral, R.C.D.; Rodrigues, J.A.; Roulet, J.F.; Roscoe, M.G. Efficiency of polymerization of bulk-fill composite resins: A systematic review. Braz. Oral Res. 2017, 31, e59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. El Gezawi, M.; Kaisarly, D.; Al-Saleh, H.; ArRejaie, A.; Al-Harbi, F.; Kunzelmann, K.H. Degradation Potential of Bulk Versus Incrementally Applied and Indirect Composites: Color, Microhardness, and Surface Deterioration. Oper. Dent. 2016, 41, e195–e208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Llena, C.; Fernández, S.; Forner, L. Color stability of nanohybrid resin-based composites, ormocers and compomers. Clin. Oral Investig. 2017, 21, 1071–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Obici, A.C.; Sinhoreti, M.A.; de Goes, M.F.; Consani, S.; Sobrinho, L.C. Effect of the photo-activation method on polymerization shrinkage of restorative composites. Oper. Dent. 2002, 27, 192–198. [Google Scholar]
  12. Tongtaksin, A.; Leevailoj, C. Battery Charge Affects the Stability of Light Intensity from Light-emitting Diode Light-curing Units. Oper. Dent. 2017, 42, 497–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Unsal, K.A.; Karaman, E. Effect of Additional Light Curing on Colour Stability of Composite Resins. Int. Dent. J. 2022, 72, 346–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chen, S.; Zhu, J.; Yu, M.; Jin, C.; Huang, C. Effect of aging and bleaching on the color stability and surface roughness of a recently introduced single-shade composite resin. J. Dent. 2024, 143, 104917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Da Silva, M.; Vitti, R.P.; Sinhoreti, M.A.; Consani, R.L.; Silva-Júnior, J.G.; Tonholo, J. Effect of alcoholic beverages on surface roughness and microhardness of dental composites. Dent. Mater. J. 2016, 35, 621–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Della Bona, A.; Pecho, O.E.; Ghinea, R.; Cardona, J.C.; Paravina, R.D.; Perez, M.M. Influence of Bleaching and Aging Procedures on Color and Whiteness of Dental Composites. Oper. Dent. 2019, 44, 648–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pecho, O.E.; Ghinea, R.; Alessandretti, R.; Pérez, M.M.; Della Bona, A. Visual and instrumental shade matching using CIELAB and CIEDE2000 color difference formulas. Dent. Mater. 2016, 32, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ardu, S.; Duc, O.; Di Bella, E.; Krejci, I. Color stability of recent composite resins. Odontology 2017, 105, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage. CIE Technical Report: Colorimetry, 3rd ed.; CIE Pub No, 15; CIE Central Bureau: Vienna, Austria, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  20. Luo, M.R.; Cui, G.; Rigg, B. The development of the CIE 2000 colour-difference formula: CIEDE2000. Color Res. Appl. 2001, 26, 340–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Paravina, R.D.; Ghinea, R.; Herrera, L.J.; Bona, A.D.; Igiel, C.; Linninger, M.; Sakai, M.; Takahashi, H.; Tashkandi, E.; Perez Mdel, M. Color difference thresholds in dentistry. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2015, 27, S1–S9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. ISO/TR 28642; Dentistry-Guidance on Colour Measurement. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
  23. Pérez Mdel, M.; Ghinea, R.; Rivas, M.J.; Yebra, A.; Ionescu, A.M.; Paravina, R.D.; Herrera, L.J. Development of a customized whiteness index for dentistry based on CIELAB color space. Dent. Mater. 2016, 32, 461–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Backes, C.N.; FranÇa, F.M.G.; Turssi, C.P.; Amaral, F.; Basting, R.T. Color stability of a bulk-fill composite resin light-cured at different distances. Braz. Oral Res. 2020, 34, e119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vidal, M.L.; Pecho, O.E.; Xavier, J.; Della Bona, A. Influence of the photoactivation distance on the color and whiteness stability of resin-based composite after bleaching and aging. J. Dent. 2020, 99, 103408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Maucoski, C.; Price, R.B.; Rocha, M.G.; Roulet, J.F.; Sullivan, B. Ability of short exposures from laser and quad-wave curing lights to photo-cure bulk-fill resin-based composites. Dent. Mater. 2023, 39, 275–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Xu, T.; Li, X.; Wang, H.; Zheng, G.; Yu, G.; Wang, H.; Zhu, S. Polymerization shrinkage kinetics and degree of conversion of resin composites. J. Oral. Sci. 2020, 62, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ozera, E.H.; Pascon, F.M.; Correr, A.B.; Puppin-Rontani, R.M.; Castilho, A.R.; Correr-Sobrinho, L.; Paula, A.B. Color Stability and Gloss of Esthetic Restorative Materials after Chemical Challenges. Braz. Dent. J. 2019, 30, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Arocha, M.A.; Mayoral, J.R.; Lefever, D.; Mercade, M.; Basilio, J.; Roig, M. Color stability of siloranes versus methacrylate-based composites after immersion in staining solutions. Clin. Oral Investig. 2013, 17, 1481–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Benavides-Reyes, C.; Pérez, M.M.; Tejada-Casado, M.; Ruiz-López, J.; Lucena, C. Color stability and degree of conversion of gingiva-colored resin-based composites. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2023, 35, 896–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Korkut, B.; Ünal, T.; Can, E. Two-year retrospective evaluation of monoshade universal composites in direct veneer and diastema closure restorations. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2023, 35, 525–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Al-Zain, A.O.; Platt, J.A. Effect of light-curing distance and curing time on composite microflexural strength. Dent. Mater. J. 2021, 40, 202–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bagheri, R.; Burrow, M.F.; Tyas, M. Influence of food-simulating solutions and surface finish on susceptibility to staining of aesthetic restorative materials. J. Dent. 2005, 33, 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fontes, S.T.; Fernández, M.R.; de Moura, C.M.; Meireles, S.S. Color stability of a nanofill composite: Effect of different immersion media. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2009, 17, 388–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Costa, M.P.; Jacomine, J.C.; Mosquim, V.; Santin, D.C.; Zabeu, G.S.; Agulhari, M.A.S.; Mondelli, R.F.L.; Honório, H.M.; Wang, L. Analysis of color stability and degree of conversion of different types of resin composites. Braz. Oral Res. 2024, 38, e003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Santerre, J.P.; Shajii, L.; Leung, B.W. Relation of Dental Composite Formulations To Their Degradation and the Release of Hydrolyzed Polymeric-Resin-Derived Products. Crit. Rev. Oral Biol. Med. 2001, 12, 136–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Sideridou, I.D.; Achilias, D.S. Elution study of unreacted Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, UDMA, and Bis-EMA from light-cured dental resins and resin composites using HPLC. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2005, 74, 617–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yılmaz Atalı, P.; Doğu Kaya, B.; Manav Özen, A.; Tarçın, B.; Şenol, A.A.; Tüter Bayraktar, E.; Korkut, B.; Bilgin Göçmen, G.; Tağtekin, D.; Türkmen, C. Assessment of Micro-Hardness, Degree of Conversion, and Flexural Strength for Single-Shade Universal Resin Composites. Polymers 2022, 14, 4987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Elliott, J.E.; Lovell, L.G.; Bowman, C.N. Primary cyclization in the polymerization of bis-GMA and TEGDMA: A modeling approach to understanding the cure of dental resins. Dent. Mater. 2001, 17, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gajewski, V.E.; Pfeifer, C.S.; Fróes-Salgado, N.R.; Boaro, L.C.; Braga, R.R. Monomers used in resin composites: Degree of conversion, mechanical properties and water sorption/solubility. Braz. Dent. J. 2012, 23, 508–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Price, R.B.T.; Labrie, D.; Rueggeberg, F.A.; Sullivan, B.; Kostylev, I.; Fahey, J. Correlation between the beam profile from a curing light and the microhardness of four resins. Dent. Mater. 2014, 30, 1345–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dahri, W.M.; Kumar, N.; Altaf, N.; Mughal, W.; Zafar, M.S. Mechanical and Biomimetic Characteristics of Bulk-Fill Resin Dental Composites Following Exposure in a Simulated Acidic Oral Environment. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Alshali, R.Z.; Salim, N.A.; Sung, R.; Satterthwaite, J.D.; Silikas, N. Analysis of long-term monomer elution from bulk-fill and conventional resin-composites using high performance liquid chromatography. Dent. Mater. 2015, 31, 1587–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Misilli, T.; Gönülol, N. Water sorption and solubility of bulk-fill composites polymerized with a third generation LED LCU. Braz. Oral Res. 2017, 31, e80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Emami, N.; Söderholm, K.J. How light irradiance and curing time affect monomer conversion in light-cured resin composites. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2003, 111, 536–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fan, P.L.; Schumacher, R.M.; Azzolin, K.; Geary, R.; Eichmiller, F.C. Curing-light intensity and depth of cure of resin-based composites tested according to international standards. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2002, 133, 429–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Al-Zain, A.O.; Eckert, G.J.; Platt, J.A. The Influence of Distance on Radiant Exposure and Degree of Conversion Using Different Light-Emitting-Diode Curing Units. Oper. Dent. 2019, 44, E133–E144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Selig, D.; Haenel, T.; Hausnerová, B.; Moeginger, B.; Labrie, D.; Sullivan, B.; Price, R.B. Examining exposure reciprocity in a resin based composite using high irradiance levels and real-time degree of conversion values. Dent. Mater. 2015, 31, 583–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Anusavice, K.; Shen, C.; Rawls, H. Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials; Elsevier Health Sciences: St Louis, MO, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sobrinho, L.C.; Goes, M.F.; Consani, S.; Sinhoreti, M.A.; Knowles, J.C. Correlation between light intensity and exposure time on the hardness of composite resin. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2000, 11, 361–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mainardi Mdo, C.; Giorgi, M.C.; Lima, D.A.; Marchi, G.M.; Ambrosano, G.M.; Paulillo, L.A.; Aguiar, F.H. Effect of energy density and delay time on the degree of conversion and Knoop microhardness of a dual resin cement. J. Investig. Clin. Dent. 2015, 6, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Soh, M.S.; Yap, A.U. Influence of curing modes on crosslink density in polymer structures. J. Dent. 2004, 32, 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Stansbury, J.W.; Dickens, S.H. Determination of double bond conversion in dental resins by near infrared spectroscopy. Dent. Mater. 2001, 17, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kim, M.H.; Min, S.H.; Ferracane, J.; Lee, I.B. Initial dynamic viscoelasticity change of composites during light curing. Dent. Mater. 2010, 26, 463–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Lang, M.; Hirner, S.; Wiesbrock, F.; Fuchs, P. A Review on Modeling Cure Kinetics and Mechanisms of Photopolymerization. Polymers 2022, 14, 2074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Borges, M.G.; Silva, G.R.; Neves, F.T.; Soares, C.J.; Faria, E.S.A.L.; Carvalho, R.F.; Menezes, M.S. Oxygen Inhibition of Surface Composites and Its Correlation with Degree of Conversion and Color Stability. Braz. Dent. J. 2021, 32, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Bragança, G.F.; Vianna, A.S.; Neves, F.D.; Price, R.B.; Soares, C.J. Effect of exposure time and moving the curing light on the degree of conversion and Knoop microhardness of light-cured resin cements. Dent. Mater. 2020, 36, e340–e351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Price, R.B.; Ferracane, J.L.; Shortall, A.C. Light-Curing Units: A Review of What We Need to Know. J. Dent. Res. 2015, 94, 1179–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Leprince, J.G.; Palin, W.M.; Vanacker, J.; Sabbagh, J.; Devaux, J.; Leloup, G. Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites. J. Dent. 2014, 42, 993–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Shortall, A.C.; Palin, W.M.; Burtscher, P. Refractive index mismatch and monomer reactivity influence composite curing depth. J. Dent. Res. 2008, 87, 84–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Polymers 18 00403 g001
Figure 1. Study design (n = 198).
Figure 1. Study design (n = 198).
Polymers 18 00403 g001
Polymers 18 00403 g002
Figure 2. Line graph showing the mean ∆E00 (A), ΔWID (B), and DoC (C) of composite resins, regardless of light polymerization methods.
Figure 2. Line graph showing the mean ∆E00 (A), ΔWID (B), and DoC (C) of composite resins, regardless of light polymerization methods.
Polymers 18 00403 g002
Polymers 18 00403 g003
Figure 3. Mean ∆E00 values and standard deviations (SD) of composite resins polymerized in different light polymerization methods. The continuous line at 0.81 ∆E00 units represents the perceptibility threshold (PT) and the dashed line at 1.77 ∆E00 units represents the acceptability threshold (AT).
Figure 3. Mean ∆E00 values and standard deviations (SD) of composite resins polymerized in different light polymerization methods. The continuous line at 0.81 ∆E00 units represents the perceptibility threshold (PT) and the dashed line at 1.77 ∆E00 units represents the acceptability threshold (AT).
Polymers 18 00403 g003
Polymers 18 00403 g004
Figure 4. Mean ΔWID values and standard deviations (SD) of composite resins polymerized in different light polymerization methods. The continuous line at 0.61 ΔWID units represents the whiteness perceptibility threshold (WPT) and the dashed line at 2.9 ΔWID units represents the whiteness acceptability threshold (WAT). Threshold comparisons were performed using absolute ΔWID values. Negative ΔWID values indicate that specimens showed lower WID values at a later evaluation.
Figure 4. Mean ΔWID values and standard deviations (SD) of composite resins polymerized in different light polymerization methods. The continuous line at 0.61 ΔWID units represents the whiteness perceptibility threshold (WPT) and the dashed line at 2.9 ΔWID units represents the whiteness acceptability threshold (WAT). Threshold comparisons were performed using absolute ΔWID values. Negative ΔWID values indicate that specimens showed lower WID values at a later evaluation.
Polymers 18 00403 g004
Polymers 18 00403 g005
Figure 5. ATR-FTIR spectra for cured and uncured resin composites.
Figure 5. ATR-FTIR spectra for cured and uncured resin composites.
Polymers 18 00403 g005
Table 1. Composite materials used in this study.
Table 1. Composite materials used in this study.
MaterialsShadeMatrixFillerFiller Content
wt%/vol%		Lot Number
Clearfil Majesty ES-2 (Kuraray Noritake, Tokyo, Japan)A2Bis-GMA, hydrophobic aromatic dimethacrylate, hydrophobic aliphatic dimethacrylate, and dl-camphorquinone.Silanated barium glass filler, pre-polymerized organic filler, and silanated colloidal silica (the particle size of inorganic fillers ranges from 0.37 μm to 1.5 μm).78/40AB0159
Omnichroma (Tokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan)Mono shadeTEG-DMA, UDMA, Mequinol, Dibutyl hydroxyl toluene, and UV absorber.Spherical silica–zirconia filler (mean particle size: 0.3 μm, particle size range: 0.2 to 0.4 μm) and composite filler.79/68093E82
Vittra APS Unique (FGM, Joinville, SC, Brazil)Mono shadeMixture of methacrylate monomers, photoinitator composition (APS), co-initiators, stabilizers, and silane.Boron–aluminum–silicate glass.72–80/52–60040723
Abbreviations: Bis-GMA, 2,2-bis [4-(2-hydroxy-3-methacryloyloxypropoxy) phenyl] propane; TEG-DMA, triethylene glycol di methacrylate; UDMA, urethane dimethacrylate.
Table 2. Mean ∆E00 values and standard deviations (SD) of composite resins with and without additional light curing.
Table 2. Mean ∆E00 values and standard deviations (SD) of composite resins with and without additional light curing.
800 mW/cm2—20 s
(QTH)		1000 mW/cm2—20 s
(LED)		1400 mW/cm2—20 s
(LED)
Clearfil Majesty ES-2Single light2.36 ± 0.16 Aa2.18 ± 0.2 Aa1.97 ± 0.44 Aa
Additional light2.07 ± 0.3 Aa1.96 ± 0.44 Aa1.72 ± 0.21 Aa
OmnichromaSingle light8.15 ± 1.19 Ab7.78 ± 1.04 ABc7.21 ± 0.62 Bb
Additional light7.87 ± 1.48 Ab7.41 ± 1.01 Ac7.12 ± 0.58 Ab
Vittra APS UniqueSingle light8.3 ± 1.09 Ab8.28 ± 0.91 Ac8.11 ± 1.16 Ac
Additional light8.11 ± 0.6 Bb7.84± 0.4 Bc6.92 ± 1.58 Ab
Abbreviations: LED, light-emitting diode; QTH, Quartz tungsten halogen. Different uppercase superscript letters in rows show a significant difference. Different lowercase superscript letters in the columns show a significant difference. (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Mean ΔWID values and standard deviations (SD) of composite resins with and without additional light curing.
Table 3. Mean ΔWID values and standard deviations (SD) of composite resins with and without additional light curing.
800 mW/cm2—20 s
(QTH)		1000 mW/cm2—20 s
(LED)		1400 mW/cm2—20 s
(LED)
Clearfil Majesty ES-2Single light−4.63 ± 0.62 Aa−3.18 ± 0.39 Aa−3.12 ± 0.46 Aa
Additional light−4.2 ± 0.86 Ba−2.27 ± 0.62 Aa−2.21 ± 0.51 Aa
OmnichromaSingle light−17.14 ± 2.91 Ab−16.29 ± 2.37 Ab−14.93 ± 1.68 Ac
Additional light−16.65 ± 3.4 Bb−14.79 ± 2.58 Ab−14.63 ± 1.36 Ac
Vittra APS UniqueSingle light−16.51 ± 1.08 Ab−15.62 ± 1.92 Ab−15.61 ± 1.82 Ac
Additional light−15.84 ± 1.88 Bb−14.81 ± 0.73 ABb−13.17 ± 3.23 Ab
Abbreviations: LED, light-emitting diode; QTH, Quartz tungsten halogen. Different uppercase superscript letters in rows show a significant difference. Different lowercase superscript letters in the columns show a significant difference. (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Mean DoC (%) values and standard deviations (SD) of composite resins with and without additional light curing.
Table 4. Mean DoC (%) values and standard deviations (SD) of composite resins with and without additional light curing.
800 mW/cm2—20 s
(QTH)		1000 mW/cm2—20 s
(LED)		1400 mW/cm2—20 s
(LED)
Clearfil Majesty ES-2Single light73.26 ± 15.95 Aab77.80 ± 1.38 Aa78.19 ± 10.9 Aab
Additional light77.97 ± 4.20 Aa79.32 ± 2.54 Aa82.58 ± 3.42 Aa
OmnichromaSingle light58.32 ± 4.88 Ac65.76 ± 7.37 Ab74.53 ± 4.52 Aab
Additional light65.59 ± 14.24 Ab66.83 ± 14.42 Ab78.42 ± 1.64 Aab
Vittra APS UniqueSingle light55.47 ± 1.31 Ac65.35 ± 11.67 Ab67.19 ± 3.32 Ab
Additional light58.77 ± 9.69 Ac67.51 ± 7.76 Ab74.87 ± 10.36 Aab
Abbreviations: LED, light-emitting diode; QTH, Quartz tungsten halogen. Different uppercase superscript letters in rows show a significant difference. Different lowercase superscript letters in the columns show a significant difference. (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bedir, F.; Karadaş, M.; Atıcı Bedir, M.G.; Özdoğan, A. Effect of Additional Light Curing on Color Stability and Degree of Conversion of Mono-Shade Resin Composites. Polymers 2026, 18, 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18030403

AMA Style

Bedir F, Karadaş M, Atıcı Bedir MG, Özdoğan A. Effect of Additional Light Curing on Color Stability and Degree of Conversion of Mono-Shade Resin Composites. Polymers. 2026; 18(3):403. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18030403

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bedir, Fatih, Muhammet Karadaş, Makbule Gamze Atıcı Bedir, and Alper Özdoğan. 2026. "Effect of Additional Light Curing on Color Stability and Degree of Conversion of Mono-Shade Resin Composites" Polymers 18, no. 3: 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18030403

APA Style

Bedir, F., Karadaş, M., Atıcı Bedir, M. G., & Özdoğan, A. (2026). Effect of Additional Light Curing on Color Stability and Degree of Conversion of Mono-Shade Resin Composites. Polymers, 18(3), 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18030403

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop