This study compared the compressive strength of a composite resin and compomer photoactivated with a conventional quartz-tungsten halogen-light (XL 3000, 3M/SPE) and a blue light-emitting diode (LED) (SmartLite PS; Dentsply/De Trey). Forty disc-shaped specimens were prepared using a split polytetrafluoroethylene matrix (4.0 mm diameter x 8.0 mm hight) in which the materials were inserted incrementally. The curing time of each increment was of 40 s with the QTH and 10 s with the LED. The

more »

... s were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n=10), according to the light source and the restorative material. After storage in distilled water at 37oC ± 2oC for 24 h, the specimens was tested in compressive strength in a universal testing machine with load cell of 500 kgf running at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data (in MPa) were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test (p<0.05). For the composite resin, light curing with the QTH source did not produce statistically significant difference (p>0.05) in the compressive strength when compared to light curing with the LED source. However, light curing of the compomer with the QTH source resulted in significantly higher compressive strength than the use of the LED unit (p>0.05). The composite resin presented significantly higher (p>0.05) compressive strength than the compomer, regardless of the light source. In conclusion, the compressive strength of the tested materials photoactivated with a QTH and a LED light source was influenced by the energy density employed and the chemical composition of the esthetic restorative materials.