{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011278195488721804, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0015037593984962407, 'mean_word_length': 5.219626168224299, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Surface hardness comparison of resins polymerized by argon, xenon, and conventional light sources

A great deal of discussion has taken place regarding how to properly polymerize light activated resins. Claims are made that effective testing can be made by using surface hardness tests on samples with various dental instruments. Although these tests would probably identify a material that had been very poorly polymerized it would not identify materials that were properly polymerized. The lack of consistent, reproducible forces and evaluation of the results make these test practically worthless. Surface hardness which is important clinically has value when combined with evaluation of the surface immediately adjacent to the light source and the surface adjacent to the tooth. Also immediate and 24 hour testing to allow for continued polymerization is helpful in determining how to achieve best results for our patients. A variety of new light sources have been introduced to dentistry with claims of faster and better polymerizations. The visible light units are also undergoing improvements to include built in meters to monitor light output. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the top and bottom surface hardness of a composite resin using the following light sources: argon, xenon, and two visible light sources.