Analysis of temperature increase in swine gingiva after exposure to a Polywave ® LED light curing unit

The dark art of light curing in dentistry

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to show that the commonly reported irradiance values that are quoted in most publications inadequately describe the light output from light curing units (LCUs).

METHODS

The total spectral radiant power (mW) output from 12 contemporary LCUs was measured with a fiberoptic spectroradiometer and a calibrated integrating sphere. Five recordings were taken for each LCU and exposure mode. In addition, the irradiances (mW/cm²) delivered at 0-mm, 5-mm and 10-mm distances were recorded through a 6-mm diameter aperture and the radiant exposures (J/cm²) from the LCUs were calculated. Light beam profiles from the LCUs were recorded using a beam profiler, and the images were overlaid on a molar tooth to simulate a clinical setting. Data were analyzed using ANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The mean power outputs from the LCUs ranged from 380 to 2472 mW (p < 0.0001). The highest irradiance was recorded from the Cicada CV 215-G7 (3091 mW/cm² in its highest mode) and the lowest from the Radii Cal CX (731 mW/cm²). The emission spectra differed, even among the multi-peak and single-peak LCUs. Radiant exposures from the entire light tip ranged from 18.3 J/cm², Radii Cal CX, in its standard 25 s exposure mode to 3.9 J/cm² from the Monet Laser in a 3 s exposure setting. Half (50 %) of the measured irradiance values from the LCUs differed from the manufacturers' value by more than 10 %. There were significant differences in the impact of distance from the tip. The beam profiles visually highlighted the varying effects of distance from the LCU tip among different units.

CONCLUSION

There were significant differences in the emission spectra, power outputs, tip diameters, irradiances, radiant exposures, and the effect distance from the light tips. These differences underline the importance of manufacturers and researchers correctly measuring and reporting the output from the LCU to ensure that research is reproducible and that patients receive acceptable dental restorations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This article alerts clinicians, researchers and journal editors that providing only the tip irradiance (radiant exitance) value from the LCU is no longer sufficient. Manufacturers and researchers should include information on the spectral radiant power, emission spectrum, tip diameters, and also the effect of distance on the irradiance and radiant exposure, beam profiles and tooth access information when describing an LCU.

Effect of Rapid High-Intensity Light-Curing on Increasing Transdentinal Temperature and Cell Viability: An In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND

This study investigated effects of rapid high-intensity light-curing (3 s) on increasing transdentinal temperature and cell viability.

METHODS

A total of 40 dentin discs (0.5 mm) obtained from human molars were prepared, included in artificial pulp chambers (4.5 × 5 mm), and subjected to four light-curing protocols (n = 5), with a Valo Grand light curing unit: (i) 10 s protocol with a moderate intensity of 1000 mW/cm2 (Valo-10 s); (ii) 3 s protocol with a high intensity of 3200 mW/cm2 (Valo-3 s); (iii) adhesive system + Filtek Bulk-Fill Flow bulk-fill composite resin in 10 s (FBF-10 s); (iv) adhesive system + Tetric PowerFlow bulk-fill composite resin in 3 s (TPF-3 s). Transdentinal temperature changes were recorded with a type K thermocouple. Cell viability was assessed using the MTT assay. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests for comparison between experimental groups (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

The 3 s high-intensity light-curing protocol generated a higher temperature than the 10 s moderate-intensity standard (p < 0.001). The Valo-10 s and Valo-3 s groups demonstrated greater cell viability than the FBF-10s and TPF-3 s groups and statistical differences were observed between the Valo-3 s and FBF-10 s groups (p = 0.023) and Valo-3 s and TPF-3 s (p = 0.025), with a potential cytotoxic effect for the FBF-10 s and TPF-3 s groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3 s rapid high-intensity light-curing protocol of bulk-fill composite resins caused a temperature increase greater than 10 s and showed cell viability similar to and comparable to the standard protocol.

Clinical performance of preheating thermoviscous composite resin for non-carious cervical lesions restoration: A 24-month randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This 24-month, double-blind, split-mouth randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the retention rates of a preheated thermoviscous composite resin (PHT) compared to a non-heated composite resin (NHT) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

METHODS

A total of 120 restorations were restored on NCCLs using a preheated (VisCalor bulk, Voco GmbH) and a non-heated (Admira Fusion, Voco GmbH) composite resins with 60 restorations per group. A universal adhesive in the selective enamel conditioning was applied. In the PHT group, composite was heated at 68 °C for using a bench heater. In the NHT group, no heating was employed. Both restorative materials were dispensed into caps and inserted into the NCCLs. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and after 24 months of clinical service using the FDI criteria. Statistical analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier estimation analysis for retention/fracture rate and Chi-square test for the other FDI parameters (α=0.05).

RESULTS

After 24 months 108 restorations were assessed. Seven restorations were lost (two for PHT group and five for NHT group), and the retention rates (95 % confidence interval [CI]) were 96.7 % (81.5-99.9) for PHT group and 90.8 % (81.1-96.0) for NHT group, with no statistical differences between them (p > 0.05). The hazard ratio (95 % CI) was 0.52 (0.27 to 1.01), with no significant difference within groups. In terms of all other FDI parameters that were assessed, all restorations were deemed clinically acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Both composites showed high rates of retention rates after 24 months.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The clinical performance of the new preheated thermoviscous was found to be as good as the non-heated composite after 24-month of clinical evaluation in non-carious cervical lesions.

REGISTRATION OF CLINICAL TRIALS

RBR-6d6gxxz.

Effect of gingival barrier brands on operator perception, cervical adaptation, and patient comfort during in-office tooth bleaching: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Light-cured resins are widely used as gingival barriers to protect the gums from highly concentrated peroxides used in tooth bleaching. The impact of barrier brand on clinical outcomes is typically considered negligible. However, there is limited evidence on the effects of different brands on operator experience, barrier adaptation, and patient comfort.

OBJECTIVE

This clinical trial assessed the impact of four commercial gingival barrier brands (Opaldam, Topdam, Lysadam, and Maxdam) on operator perception, adaptation quality, and patient comfort.

METHODS

Twenty-one undergraduate students placed gingival barriers in a randomized sequence using blinded syringes. Photographs of the barriers were taken from frontal and incisal perspectives. After bleaching procedures, operators rated handling features and safety using Likert scale forms. Two experienced evaluators independently assessed barrier adaptation quality on a scale from 1 (perfect) to 5 (unacceptable). The absolute risk of barrier-induced discomfort was recorded. Data were analyzed using Friedman and Chi-square tests (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Opaldam and Topdam received the highest scores in most handling features, except for removal, which was similar among all brands. No significant difference was observed in barrier adaptation quality between the evaluated brands. Discomforts were mainly reported in the upper dental arch, with Maxdam having the highest absolute risk (35% for this arch and 24% overall).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that gingival barrier brands can influence operator perception and patient comfort. Opaldam and Topdam were preferred by operators, but all brands demonstrated comparable adaptation quality.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was nested in a randomized clinical trial registered in the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry under identification number RBR-9gtr9sc.

Temperature changes and hardness of resin-based composites light-cured with laser diode or light-emitting diode curing lights

The temperature and Vickers Hardness (VH) at the top and bottom surfaces of three resin-based composites (RBCs) were measured when light-cured using five light-curing units (LCUs). The spectrum, power, and energy delivered to the top of the RBCs and transmitted through the RBCs were measured. Starting at 32℃, the temperature rise produced by the Monet Laser (ML-1 s and 3 s), Valo Grand (VG-3 s and 10 s), DeepCure (DC-10 s), PowerCure, (PC-3 s and 10 s) and PinkWave (PW-10 s) were measured at the bottom of specimens 2 mm deep × 6 mm wide made of Filtek Universal A2, Tetric Evoceram A2 and an experimental RBC codenamed Transcend UB. The VH values measured at the top and bottom of these RBCs were analyzed using ANOVA and Scheffe's post hoc test (p < 0.05) to determine the effects of the LCUs on the RBCs. The transmitted power from the ML was reduced by 77.4% through 2 mm of Filtek Universal, whereas light from PW decreased by only 36.8% through Transcend. The highest temperature increases from the LCU combined with the exothermic reaction occurred for Transcend, and overall, no significant differences were detected between Filtek Universal and Tetric Evoceram (p = 0.9756). Transcend achieved the highest VH values at the top and bottom surfaces. The PinkWave used for 10 s produced the largest temperature increase (20.2℃) in Transcend. The Monet used for 1 s produced the smallest increase (7.8℃) and the lowest bottom:top VH ratios.

In-vitro pulpal temperature increases when photo-curing bulk-fill resin-based composites using laser or light-emitting diode light curing units

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the in vitro pulpal temperature rise (ΔT) within the pulp chamber when low- and high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites are photo-cured using laser or contemporary light curing units (LCUs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The light output from five LCUs was measured. Non-retentive Class I and V cavities were prepared in one upper molar. Two T-type thermocouples were inserted into the pulp chamber. After the PT values reached 32°C under simulated pulp flow (0.026 mL/min), both cavities were restored with: Filtek One Bulk Fill (3 M), Filtek Bulk Fill Flow (3 M), Tetric PowerFill (Ivoclar Vivadent), or Tetric PowerFlow (Ivoclar Vivadent). The tooth was exposed as follows: Monet Laser (1 and 3 s), PowerCure (3 and 20 s), PinkWave (3 and 20 s), Valo X (5 and 20 s) and SmartLite Pro (20 s). The ΔT data were subjected to one-way ANOVA followed by Scheffe's post hoc test.

RESULTS

Monet 1 s (1.9 J) and PinkWave 20 s (30.1 J) delivered the least and the highest amount of energy, respectively. Valo X and PinkWave used for 20 s produced the highest ΔT values (3.4-4.1°C). Monet 1 s, PinkWave 3 s, PowerCure 3 s (except FB-Flow) and Monet 3 s for FB-One and TP-Fill produced the lowest ΔT values (0.9-1.7°C). No significant differences were found among composites.

CONCLUSIONS

Short 1- to 3-s exposures produced acceptable temperature rises, regardless of the composite.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The energy delivered to the tooth by the LCUs affects the temperature rise inside the pulp. The short 1-3 s exposure times used in this study delivered the least amount of energy and produced a lower temperature rise. However, the RBC may not have received sufficient energy to be adequately photo-cured.

Dental Light-Curing-Assessing the Blue-Light Hazard

This article focuses on the current understanding and concerns over the blue-light hazard when using dental light-curing units. It also provides information and safety protocols to guide the practitioner in making important decisions regarding dental personnel's health and the quality of dental restorations.

Light-curing units used in dentistry: Effect of their characteristics on temperature development in teeth

This study aimed to investigate pulp chamber and surface temperature development using different LED light curing units (LCUs). Eight brands of LED-LCUs were tested in a laboratory bench model. The pulp chamber and surface temperature were recorded with a type T thermocouple and infrared cameras, respectively. The highest pulp chamber and surface temperature increase was 6.1±0.3°C and 20.1±1.7°C, respectively. Wide-spectrum LED-LCUs produced higher pulp chamber temperature increase at 0 mm and 2 mm but lower at 4 mm. Narrow-spectrum LED-LCUs produced higher surface temperature increase. LED-LCU featuring modulated output mode resulted in lower increase in pulp chamber temperature but higher on surface temperature. LED-LCU with light guide tip delivering an inhomogeneous beam caused higher increase in temperature on the surface and in the pulp chamber. LED-LCUs with different spectral emission, output mode and light guide tip design contributed to different temperature development in the pulp chamber and at the surface of teeth.

A novel acrylic resin palatal device contaminated with Candida albicans biofilm for denture stomatitis induction in Wistar rats

Denture stomatitis is the most frequent oral lesion in removable prosthesis wearers, with high recurrence rates and a complex treatment.

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.

Shedding light on a potential hazard: Dental light-curing units

BACKGROUND

Dental light-curing units (LCUs) are powerful sources of blue light that can cause soft-tissue burns and ocular damage. Although most ophthalmic research on the hazards of blue light pertains to low levels from personal electronic devices, computer monitors, and light-emitting diode light sources, the amount of blue light emitted from dental LCUs is much greater and may pose a "blue light hazard."

METHODS

The authors explain the potential risks of using dental LCUs, identify the agencies that provide guidelines designed to protect all workers from excessive exposure to blue light, discuss the selection of appropriate eye protection, and provide clinical tips to ensure eye safety when using LCUs.

RESULTS

While current literature and regulatory standards regarding the safety of blue light is primarily based on animal studies, sufficient evidence exists to suggest that appropriate precautions should be taken when using dental curing lights. The authors found it difficult to find on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration database which curing lights had been cleared for use in the United States or Europe and could find no database that listed which brands of eyewear designed to protect against the blue light has been cleared for use. The authors conclude that more research is needed on the cumulative exposure to blue light in humans. Manufacturers of curing lights, government and regulatory agencies, employers, and dental personnel should collaborate to determine ocular risks from blue light exist in the dental setting, and recommend appropriate eye protection. Guidance on selection and proper use of eye protection should be readily accessible.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines for Infection Control in the Dental Health-Care Setting-2003 and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Bloodborne Pathogen Standard do not include safety recommendations or regulations that are directly related to blue light exposure. However, there are additional Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations that require employers to protect their employees from potentially injurious light radiation. Unfortunately, it is not readily evident that these regulations apply to the excessive exposure to blue light. Consequently employers and dental personnel may be unaware that these Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations exist.