Solely light-activated luting agents have been suggested for cementing procedures with aesthetic rehabilitations, but questions remain regarding their curing potential under more opaque prosthesis. To determine the degree of carbon double bond (C=C) conversion (DC) of four categories of luting strategies when considering the interposition of lithium-disilicate ceramic laminates with different translucencies during the photo-activation procedures. Four different luting strategies were considered: a dual-activated resin-based cement (control, RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE), a solely light-activated resin-based cement (RelyX Veneer, 3M ESPE), a flowable resin-based composite (Filtek Z350 XT Flow, 3M ESPE), and a pre-heated (68 °C for 30 min) regular resin-based composite (Filtek Z350 XT, 3M ESPE). The DC was determined by Fourier-transformed infrared spectroscopy (n = 6), 1 min after light-activation in two conditions: (a) with direct light exposure and (b) with light exposure with the interposition of lithium-disilicate disks (e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent) with 1.5 mm thickness with three translucent degrees: high translucency (HT), low translucency (LT), and medium opacity (MO). The translucency parameter (TP) formula was performed to quantitatively evaluate the ceramics’ translucencies using white (L* = 93.7, a* = 1.2, and b* = 0.8) and black (L* = 8.6, a* = − 0.7, and b* = − 1.5) backgrounds. The irradiance from the light curing unit (Bluephase G2, Ivoclar Vivadent) was calculated with a power meter (Ophir Optronics) with direct light exposure to the sensor and also with the interposition of the light ceramic discs. Degree of conversion data was submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α = 0.05). Translucency parameters values were 16.4, 13.4 and 12.6 for HT, LT and MO ceramics—respectively—and affected the percentage of light transmission. For all ceramic translucencies the highest DC values were observed for the dual-activated resin-based cement followed by the solely light-activated resin-based cement, the flowable composite and then by pre-heated regular composite. The ceramic’s translucency influenced the DC only for the pre-heated composite. The effect of the ceramic translucency on the curing behavior was dependent on the luting strategy. The DC was only affected for the pre-heated composite, which demonstrates lower conversion with the increased ceramic opacity.

中文翻译：

---

陶瓷半透明性是否会影响助剂的转化程度？

已经提出了仅光活化的诱剂用于美学修复的固井程序，但是在更不透明的假体下其固化潜力仍然存在疑问。当考虑在光活化过程中插入具有不同半透明性的二硅酸锂陶瓷层压板时，要确定四类引诱策略的碳双键（C = C）转化（DC）程度。考虑了四种不同的引诱策略：双活化树脂基水泥（对照，RelyX ARC，3M ESPE），单光活化树脂基水泥（RelyX Veneer，3M ESPE），可流动的树脂基复合材料（Filtek）。 Z350 XT Flow，3M ESPE）和预热（68°C，30分钟）的常规树脂基复合材料（Filtek Z350 XT，3M ESPE）。在两种条件下，在光激活后1分钟，通过傅立叶变换红外光谱法（n = 6）确定DC：（a）直接曝光和（b）放置有二硅酸锂圆盘的曝光（e .max Press，Ivoclar Vivadent）的厚度为1.5毫米，具有三个半透明度：高半透明（HT），低半透明（LT）和中等不透明（MO）。使用白色（L * = 93.7，a * = 1.2，b * = 0.8）和黑色（L * = 8.6，a * =-0.7，和黑色）执行半透明参数（TP）公式来定量评估陶瓷的半透明性。 b * = − 1.5）背景。使用功率计（Ophir Optronics）计算光固化单元（Bluephase G2，Ivoclar Vivadent）的辐照度，将光直接照射到传感器上，并插入光陶瓷盘。将转化度数据提交至双向ANOVA和Tukey检验（α= 0.05）。HT，LT和MO陶瓷的半透明参数值分别为16.4、13.4和12.6，这会影响透光率。对于所有陶瓷半透明性，双活化树脂基水泥，其次是仅光活化树脂基水泥，可流动的复合材料，然后是预热的常规复合材料均观察到最高的DC值。陶瓷的半透明性仅影响预热复合材料的直流电。陶瓷半透明性对固化行为的影响取决于上胶策略。仅对预热的复合材料影响DC，这表明转化率较低，而陶瓷不透明性增加。HT，LT和MO陶瓷的半透明参数值分别为16.4、13.4和12.6，这会影响透光率。对于所有陶瓷半透明性，双活化树脂基水泥，其次是仅光活化树脂基水泥，可流动的复合材料，然后是预热的常规复合材料均观察到最高的DC值。陶瓷的半透明性仅影响预热复合材料的直流电。陶瓷半透明性对固化行为的影响取决于上胶策略。仅对预热的复合材料影响DC，这表明转化率较低，而陶瓷不透明性增加。HT，LT和MO陶瓷的半透明参数值分别为16.4、13.4和12.6，这会影响透光率。对于所有陶瓷半透明性，双活化树脂基水泥，其次是仅光活化树脂基水泥，可流动的复合材料，然后是预热的常规复合材料均观察到最高的DC值。陶瓷的半透明性仅影响预热复合材料的直流电。陶瓷半透明性对固化行为的影响取决于上胶策略。仅对预热的复合材料影响DC，这表明转化率较低，而陶瓷不透明性增加。对于所有陶瓷半透明性，双活化树脂基水泥，其次是仅光活化树脂基水泥，可流动的复合材料，然后是预热的常规复合材料均观察到最高的DC值。陶瓷的半透明性仅影响预热复合材料的直流电。陶瓷半透明性对固化行为的影响取决于上胶策略。仅对预热的复合材料影响DC，这表明转化率较低，并且陶瓷不透明性增加。对于所有陶瓷半透明性，双活化树脂基水泥，其次是仅光活化树脂基水泥，可流动的复合材料以及预热的常规复合材料均观察到最高的DC值。陶瓷的半透明性仅影响预热复合材料的直流电。陶瓷半透明性对固化行为的影响取决于上胶策略。仅对预热的复合材料影响DC，这表明转化率较低，而陶瓷不透明性增加。陶瓷半透明性对固化行为的影响取决于上胶策略。仅对预热的复合材料影响DC，这表明转化率较低，而陶瓷不透明性增加。陶瓷半透明性对固化行为的影响取决于上胶策略。仅对预热的复合材料影响DC，这表明转化率较低，而陶瓷不透明性增加。