Efficacy of light-emitting diode light polymerization units used in private practices in Toronto, Ontario, Canada

A Blinded Comparative Study of Four Commercially Available LEDs and a Laser Light Curing Device

OBJECTIVE

 This study determined the effectiveness of five light-curing units (LCUs; four light-emitting diode [LED] and one laser) used on different settings to photo-activate four conventional resin-based composites (RBCs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 A total of 108 RBC specimens were photo-activated in a white Delrin mold representing a mesial-occlusal-distal (MOD) class II restoration in a molar tooth. The proximal boxes were 5 mm deep, and the mesial-distal length was 12 mm. Immediately after photo-curing, the RBC specimens were immersed in a solvent to remove the uncured materials, after which they were photographed and deidentified. A Research Electronic Data Capture survey was created using these images and sent to respondents who blindly assessed the ability of the various LCUs to photo-cure the MOD restorations.

RESULTS

 There were significant differences in how the five curing lights had cured RBCs. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), pairwise t-test, Welch's one-way ANOVA, and Kruskal-Wallis rank test in the blinded survey data showed significant differences between the LED curing lights used for two 10-second cures and the laser curing light used for 1 second, and LED lights at lower settings.

CONCLUSION

 There was a significant difference in how the curing lights could photo-cure the RBCs used in this study. The laser curing light used for 1 second produced the worst results in all four RBCs.

Resin Composites in Posterior Teeth: Clinical Performance and Direct Restorative Techniques

Resin composites are the most versatile restorative materials used in dentistry and the first choice for restoring posterior teeth. This article reviews aspects that influence the clinical performance of composite restorations and addresses clinically relevant issues regarding different direct techniques for restoring posterior teeth that could be performed in varied clinical situations. The article discusses the results of long-term clinical trials with resin composites and the materials available in the market for posterior restorations. The importance of photoactivation is presented, including aspects concerning the improvement of the efficiency of light-curing procedures. With regard to the restorative techniques, the article addresses key elements and occlusion levels for restoring Class I and Class II cavities, in addition to restorative strategies using different shades/opacities of resin composites in incremental techniques, restorations using bulk-fill composites, and shade-matching composites.

The Ability of Dental Practitioners to Light-Cure Simulated Restorations

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Using a patient simulator, dental professionals were tested to determine their ability to light-polymerize simulated restorations in their dental practice. After receiving specific instructions and training using the simulator, their ability to deliver sufficient light to polymerize restorations was significantly and substantially improved.

SUMMARY

Objectives: To determine the ability of dental professionals to deliver a radiant exposure of at least six J/cm2 in 10 seconds to simulated restorations.Methods and Materials: The study initially examined 113 light-emitting-diode (LED) light polymerization units (LPUs) used in dental offices to determine if they could deliver at least 6 J/cm2 radiant exposure (RE) in 10s. This assessment was completed by using a laboratory-grade light measuring device (checkMARC, BlueLight Analytics, Halifax, NS, Canada). The participating dental professionals whose LPUs could deliver 6 J/cm2 then used their own LPU to light-cure simulated anterior and posterior restorations in the MARC Patient Simulator (BlueLight Analytics). They then received specific instructions and were retested using the same LPUs. Data were statistically analyzed with a series of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), two-way ANOVA, paired-samples t-tests, Fisher post hoc multiple comparison tests, and McNemar tests with a preset alpha of 0.05 (SPSS Inc).Results: Ten (8.8%) LPUs could not deliver the required RE to the checkMARC in 10s and were eliminated from the study. For the anterior restoration, most dental practitioners (87.3%) could deliver at least 6 J/cm2 before instructions. After receiving additional light-curing instructions, only two (1.9%) participants were unable to deliver 6 J/cm2 to the anterior location. At the posterior location, only 55.3% (57) participants could deliver at least 6 J/cm2 before the instructions. After receiving these instructions, an additional 32 participants delivered at least 6 J/cm2. Overall, after receiving instructions on how to use the LPU correctly, the participants improved the amount of RE they delivered to anterior and posterior restorations by 22.5% and 30%, respectively.Conclusion: This study revealed that at the baseline, 44.7% of participating dental professionals failed to deliver 6 J/cm2 in 10s to the posterior simulated restoration when using their own LPU.

The light-curing unit: An essential piece of dental equipment

INTRODUCTION

This article describes the features that should be considered when describing, purchasing and using a light-curing unit (LCU).

METHODS

The International System of Units (S.I.) terms of radiant power or radiant flux (mW), spectral radiant power (mW/nm), radiant exitance or tip irradiance (mW/cm² ), and the irradiance received at the surface (also in mW/cm² ) are used to describe the output from LCU. The concept of using an irradiance beam profile to map the radiant exposure (J/cm² ) from the LCU is introduced.

RESULTS

Even small changes in the active tip diameter of the LCU will have a large effect on the radiant exitance. The emission spectra and the effects of distance on the irradiance delivered are not the same from all LCUs. The beam profile images show that using a single averaged irradiance value to describe the LCU can be very misleading. Some LCUs have 'hot spots' of high radiant exitance that far exceed the current ISO 10650 standard. Such inhomogeneity may cure the resin unevenly and may also be dangerous to soft tissues. Recommendations are made that will help the dentist when purchasing and then safely using the LCU.

CONCLUSIONS

Dental manufacturers should report the radiant power from their LCU, the spectral radiant power, information about the compatibility of the emission spectrum from the LCU with the photoinitiators used, the active optical tip diameter, the radiant exitance, the effect of distance from the tip on the irradiance delivered, and the irradiance beam profile from the LCU.