General dental practitioners' knowledge of polymerisation of resin-based composite restorations and light curing unit technology

Shedding light on the problem: Proficiency and maintenance practices of light-curing units among dental assistants

BACKGROUND

Proper light curing is crucial for the success of restorative dentistry and to bond brackets to teeth, yet the responsibility is often delegated to dental assistants (DAs). This study assessed the proficiency and maintenance protocols of DAs when using light-curing units (LCUs) in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to practicing DAs. The questionnaire contained sections on knowledge, adherence to best practices, and how to maintain the LCU. Demographic data were collected as well. Descriptive statistics and linear regressions at a significance level of (p = 0.05) were conducted to identify any relationships that influenced the DAs' LCU knowledge, practice, and maintenance protocols.

RESULTS

Among the surveyed DAs, 66% were responsible for using the LCU during treatment, 16% used their fingers for support when light curing, 50% held the LCU tip 1-2 mm from the restoration during curing, and 51% did not have a specific maintenance protocol at their workplace. 70% did not know the output from the LCU, and their educational background correlated with knowledge (b = -14.42, p < 0.001). The type of institution type correlated with adherence to best practices (b = -13.65, p = 0.011), and level of knowledge and adherence to maintenance protocols showed a direct correlation (b = 0.002, p = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings revealed that a significant percentage of the DAs who replied had insufficient knowledge and did not follow the best practices and maintenance protocols for the LCUs they were using. Their educational background and workplace factors influenced this knowledge gap, while the absence of a maintenance protocol and suboptimal practices were associated with the type of institution.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

To maintain the best practice, clinicians and institutions should improve the education and training of DAs. Otherwise, inadequate light curing by the DAs may jeopardize the long-term success of many dental procedures.

Irradiance from 12 LED light curing units measured using 5 brands of dental radiometers

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accuracy of five brands of radiometers in reporting the irradiance (mW/cm2 ) from twelve brands of LCUs compared to a 'Gold Standard' (GS) reference obtained from a hand-held laboratory-grade radiometer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The irradiance was measured from two examples of twelve brands of previously used LCUs on two examples of five brands of dental radiometers. The emission spectrum was also obtained. Irradiance data from each brand of LCU against each meter was analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality. The irradiance values were subjected to a two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni tests for each LCU brand. Finally, a descriptive analysis was made using a 95% confidence interval around the mean irradiance.

RESULTS

The power output from the LCUs ranged from 271 mW to 1005 mW. Among the tested radiometers, only the Bluephase Meter II could accurately report the irradiance from 11 out of the 12 brands of LCU evaluated in this study. When measured using the "GS" system, the mean irradiance values from the two examples of nine brands of previously used LCU were not always within ±10% of the irradiance values stated by the manufacturer.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean irradiance values from 9 of the 12 brands of used LCUs were beyond ±10% of the irradiance values stated by the manufacturer. Only the Bluephase Meter II could accurately report the irradiance from 11 out of the 12 brands of LCU evaluated in this study.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

There was a wide range in the power output from the LCUs tested. It was impossible to accurately measure the irradiance from all the LCUs using the dental radiometers examined. However, dental radiometers should still be used in dental offices to monitor the light output from LCUs and verify that they are working correctly before they are used on patients.

Effect of the Sample Preparation and Light-curing Unit on the Microhardness and Degree of Conversion of Bulk-fill Resin-based Composite Restorations

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of the sample preparation and light-curing units (LCUs) on the Knoop hardness (KH, N/mm2) and degree of conversion (DC, %) of bulk-fill resin-based composite restorations.

METHODS

Two molds were made using human molar teeth embedded in acrylic resin. One was a conventional tooth mold where the molar received a mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) preparation. In the other, the tooth was sectioned in three slices (buccal, middle, and lingual). The center slice received a MOD preparation similar to the conventional mold. Both tooth molds were placed in the second mandibular molar position in a Dentoform with a 44-mm interincisal opening. Restorations were made using Opus Bulk Fill (FGM) high viscosity bulk-fill resin-based composite (RBC) and light cured using two different lights: VALO Cordless (Ultradent) and Bluephase G2 (Ivoclar Vivadent). The RBC was placed in one increment that was light-cured for a total of 80 seconds (40 seconds at the occluso-mesial and occluso-distal locations). The RBC specimens were then prepared as follows: EmbPol - tooth mold specimen was embedded in polystyrene resin and polished before testing; Pol - tooth mold specimen was not embedded, but was polished before testing; NotPol - sectioned tooth mold, specimen not embedded nor polished before testing. The KH was measured in different depths and regions of the specimens, and the DC was measured using Raman spectroscopy.

RESULTS

The results were analyzed using a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or repeated measures followed by the Tukey posthoc test (α=0.05). The preparation method (p<0.001), depth of restoration (p<0.001), and the interaction between method and depth (p=0.003) all influenced the KH values. Preparation method (p<0.001), tooth region (p<0.001), and the interaction between method and tooth region (p=0.002) all influenced DC values. The KH values were reduced significantly from the top to the bottom of the restorations and also at the proximal box when compared with the occlusal region. This outcome was most significant in the proximal boxes. The NotPol method was the most effective method to detect the effect of differences in KH or DC within the restoration. A lower DC and KH were found at the gingival regions of the proximal boxes of the restorations. When the KH and DC values were compared, there were no significant differences between the LCUs (KH p=0.4 and DC p=0.317).

CONCLUSION

Preparation methods that embedded the samples in polystyrene resin and polished the specimens reduced the differences between the KH and DC values obtained by different preparation techniques. The NotPol method was better able to detect differences produced by light activation in deeper areas.

An Evaluation of the Efficacy of LED Light Curing Units in Primary and Secondary Dental Settings in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the irradiance and the quality of LED light curing units (LCUs) in primary and secondary clinics in the UK and to assess the effect of damage, contamination, use of protective sleeves, and distance of light tips to target on the irradiance and performance of LCUs.

METHODS

The irradiance levels (mW/cm2) of 26 LED LCUs from general dental practices and 207 LED LCUs from two dental hospitals were measured using a digital radiometer (Blue Phase II, Ivoclar, Vivadent, Amherst, NY). Ten LED light guide tips (Satelec Mini, Acteon, Merignac, France) were selected to evaluate the effect of chipping, contamination (tip debris), and use of protective sleeves and tips to sensor distance on irradiance (mW/cm2) using a MARC Resin Calibrator (Blue Light Analytics, Halifax, Canada). Homogeneity of the light output was evaluated using a laser beam profiler (SP620; Ophir-Spiricon, North Longan, UT, USA). Statistical analysis was conducted using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Tukey test (α=0.05) and linear regression with stepwise correlation tests.

RESULTS

Thirty-three percent of the LCUs delivered irradiance output less than 500 mW/cm2. The condition of the light curing tips was poor, with 16% contaminated with resin debris, 26% damaged, and 10% both contaminated and damaged. The irradiance output was significantly reduced in contaminated (62%) and chipped (50%) light curing tips and when using protective sleeves (24%) (p<0.05). Irradiance was also reduced when increasing the distance with 25% and 34% reduction at 7 mm and 10 mm, respectively (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

There remains a lack of awareness of the need for regular monitoring and maintenance of dental LCUs. Damaged and contaminated light curing tips, use of protective sleeves, and increasing the distance from the restoration significantly reduced the irradiance output and the performance of the LCUs.

High-Power LED Units Currently Available for Dental Resin-Based Materials-A Review

The pursuit of less time-consuming procedures led to the development of high-power light-curing-units (LCU) to light-cure dental-resin-based-materials. This review aims to describe high-power light-emitting-diode (LED)-LCUs, by a bibliometric systematization of in vitro and in vivo studies. The research-question, by PICO model, aimed to assess the current knowledge on dentistry-based high-power LED-LCUs by analyzing to what extent their use can promote adverse events on materials and patients' oral condition when compared to low-power LED-LCUs, on daily dental practice. PubMed and B-on database search focused on high-power (≥2000 mW/cm2) LED-LCUs outputs. Studies assessing performance of high-power LED-LCUs for light-curing dental-resin-based-materials were included. From 1822 screened articles, 21 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two marketed units with high levels of radiant emittance (≥2000 mW/cm2 up to 6000 mW/cm2) were identified. Most output values vary on 2000-3000 mW/cm2. The highest output found was 6000 mW/cm2, in FlashMax™P3. Reports suggest that light-curing protocols with lower emittance irradiance and longer exposure outperforms all other combination, however in some clinical procedures high-power LED-LCUs are advocated when compared to low-power LED-LCUs. Moreover, long time exposures and over-curing can be dangerous to the biological vital pulp, and other oral tissues. Evidence showing that high-power LCUs are the best clinical option is still very scarce.

Knowledge and Attitude of Dental Clinicians towards Light-Curing Units: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objectives

Light curing is crucial when applying composite resin restorations. Complete polymerization of the resin depends on delivering adequate light energy to it. Dental clinicians may be unaware of the importance of proper light-curing techniques. This study aimed at evaluating and comparing the level of knowledge of general practitioners (GPs) and specialists (SPs) regarding light-curing units.

Materials and Methods

An electronic survey was conducted online among GPs and SPs of various specialties, working in the governmental sector in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Collected data were analyzed for statistical significance.

Results

310 dentists were included in the study. Nearly half of the GPs (45.9%) and more than half of SPs (56.8%) use light-emitting diode (LED) type light-curing units (LCUs). 36.9% of GPs and 29.6% of SPs were unsure about the type of LCUs they use in their dental clinics. 10.8% of GPs and 8.5% of SPs knew the proper term of the power output of LCU. 52.2% of the GPs and 55.7% of SPs were wrong about advancements in technology of LED LCUs. Regarding the use of radiometer, 48.2% of SPs and 35.1% of GPs had responded wrongly, and 37.7% of SPs and 52.3% of GPs were not familiar with the device, showing a statistical significance (p=0.040). There was no statistical significance observed in the responses pertaining to their years of experience, expected for two questions.

Conclusion

Both GPs and SPs displayed inadequate knowledge regarding the use of LCUs. Further educational programs are recommended to spread awareness about the handling of LCUs among dental clinicians.

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.

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.

Optimization of Photopolymerization Process of Dental Composites

The aim of this paper is to perform optimization of photopolymerization process of dental composites in order to obtain maximum hardness. Samples (5 mm diameter; 2, 3 and 4 mm thickness) were made of Universal Composite (UC), Bulk fill Composite (BC) and Flowable Composite (FC). Light curing of specimens was performed with 600, 1000 and 1500 mW/cm2 light intensity and an irradiation time of 20, 40 and 60 s. Vickers microhardness on the top and bottom surfaces of samples was measured. Optimization was carried out via regression analysis using QStatLab software. Photopolymerization process parameters were calculated using a specially designed MatLab software-based algorithm. For all composites, regression models for hardness on top and bottom surfaces of composite layer were established. Layer thickness as well as hardness on top and bottom surfaces of each composite was calculated for 21 curing modes varying with light intensity and irradiation time. It was established that photopolymerization guidelines only of FC manufacturer guarantee the required hardness, while recommended regimes for UC and BC did not satisfy this requirement. Tables, containing recommended light curing regimes, were developed for three composite types, guaranteeing high hardness of composite restoration. They were designed to facilitate work of dentists in dental offices.

On the inaccuracies of dental radiometers

This study investigated the accuracy of sixteen models of commercial dental radiometers (DR) in measuring the output of thirty-eight LED light curing units (LCUs) compared with a 'gold standard' laboratory-grade spectrometer integrating-sphere (IS) assembly. Nineteen Type I (fiber-bundle light guide) and nineteen Type II (light source in head) LED LCUs were tested, some using different output modes and light guides, resulting in 61 test subsets per radiometer. Gold standard (GS) output measurements (n = 3) were taken using the IS and confirmed with two types of laboratory-grade power meter (PowerMax-Pro 150 HD and PM10-19C; Coherent). One DR (Bluephase Meter II, Ivoclar; BM II) allowed power (mW) as well as irradiance (mW/cm²) recordings. Irradiance readings (n = 3) for each DR/LCU were compared with the IS derived irradiance. Individual LCU irradiance values were normalized against IS data. The GS method yielded reproducible data with a 0.4% pooled coefficient of variation for the LCUs. Mean power values ranged from 0.19 W to 2.40 W. Overall power values for the laboratory-grade power meters were within 5% of GS values. Individual LCU/DR normalized irradiance values ranged from 7% to 535% of the GS; an order of magnitude greater than previous reports. BM II was the only radiometer to average within 20% of normalized pooled GS irradiance values, whereas other radiometers differed by up to 85%. Ten radiometers failed to provide any reading for 1 LCU. When tested with the PowerMax-Pro in high speed (20 kHz) mode, eight LCUs demonstrated pulsing outputs undetectable at the standard (10 Hz) data acquisition rate. Sufficient light exposure is critical for the successful curing of dental resin-based materials. Substantial discrepancies may occur between actual and estimated radiometric data using current DRs. More accurate DRs need to be developed. Manufacturers' accuracy claims for DRs should specify compatible LCUs and testing parameters.

Training and experience effect on light-curing efficiency by dental practitioners

BACKGROUND

Light-curing is a crucial step during the application of composite resin restorations. Composite's success depends on delivering enough light energy to the resin to achieve adequate polymerization. However, dentists are not recognizing the importance of proper light-curing technique.

OBJECTIVES

To measure light energy delivered to simulated restorations by preclinical dental students and dentists in internship year. To evaluate the effect of experience and training on the clinician's ability to light-cure composite restorations.

METHODS

A group of 50 preclinical dental students and a group of 50 internship dentists light-cured for 10 seconds, a simulated class III and class I restorations positioned in a patient simulator (MARC-Patient Simulator [BlueLight Analytics Inc., Canada]) that measured the irradiance and energy delivered by the curing light. Then participants received individualized training on optimizing their light-curing technique. They were retested after the training. Statistical analysis was done with two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test.

RESULTS

Participants delivered an average of 60% more energy after the instructions, which is a significant improvement (P < 0.05). The number of participants that failed to deliver the minimum amount of energy (6 J/cm²) decreased significantly from 37.5% to 2.5%. There was a significant difference in the amount of energy delivered by the Preclinical and Internship groups (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Initially, many participants were not using the curing light properly. Light-curing technique improved with training and using a patient simulator. Experience can enhance the operator's ability to light-cure composite restorations. However, a training session can improve light-curing performance more than years of experience.

Effect of Contamination, Damage and Barriers on the Light Output of Light-Curing Units

Background:

Light-curing is a crucial step during the application of composite resin restorations. The clinical success of composite depends on the Light-Curing Units (LCU) to deliver adequate light energy to polymerize the resin. However, light-curing usually does not receive the proper awareness it deserves.

Objective:

This study aims to evaluate the effect of contamination and debris of the LCU’s tip on its light output. Determine the effect of damage to the LCU’s tip such as chipping, dents and scratches. Additionally, it evaluates the effect of plastic barrier sleeves.

Methods:

Sixty LED LCUs were tested using MARC™ Resin Calibrator (BlueLight Analytic Inc., Halifax, Canada) to measure their irradiance and energy before and after cleaning their tips. They were also tested with and without a clear plastic barrier. Additionally, four damaged LCUs received new tips and were tested again. Kruskal-Wallis H and One-Way ANOVA tests were used for statistical analysis.

Results:

Cleaning the LCUs’ tips showed significant improvement, an average increase of 8.2%. However, some units increased by up to 47% in irradiance and energy values. Replacing the damaged tip with a new one significantly improved the output of the LCUs, increasing light energy by up to 73%. The barrier used in this study caused 7% reduction in the energy delivered by the LCUs. The statistical analysis showed that cleaning the LCUs and replacing their damaged tips resulted in a significant increase in energy (p<0.05).

Conclusion:

Unclean or damaged LCUs’ tips can drastically reduce the light output of the LCUs, reducing the quality of the composite restorations. Clinicians are strongly recommended to regularly monitor, clean and maintain their curing lights.

Non-Ionizing Radiation in Swedish Health Care-Exposure and Safety Aspects

The main aim of the study was to identify and describe methods using non-ionizing radiation (NIR) such as electromagnetic fields (EMF) and optical radiation in Swedish health care. By examining anticipated exposure levels and by identifying possible health hazards we also aimed to recognize knowledge gaps in the field. NIR is mainly used in health care for diagnosis and therapy. Three applications were identified where acute effects cannot be ruled out: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and electrosurgery. When using optical radiation, such as class 3 and 4 lasers for therapy or surgical procedures and ultra-violet light for therapy, acute effects such as unintentional burns, photo reactions, erythema and effects on the eyes need to be avoided. There is a need for more knowledge regarding long-term effects of MRI as well as on the combination of different NIR exposures. Based on literature and after consulting staff we conclude that the health care professionals' knowledge about the risks and safety measures should be improved and that there is a need for clear, evidence-based information from reliable sources, and it should be obvious to the user which source to address.

Guidelines for the selection, use, and maintenance of LED light-curing units - Part 1

Light curing is a critical step in the restorative process when using light-activated resin-based composites, but it is frequently not given the attention it deserves. The selection of a reliable light curing unit (LCU) that meets the practitioner's needs is an important equipment purchase. Using an inappropriate LCU may seriously compromise the quality of care without the practitioner realising their mistake until years later. The importance of the subject is reflected by the rapidly increasing use of light-cured composites and the decline in the use of amalgam. Many changes have occurred in the equipment and materials available for making light-cured restorations in the last twenty years. This article is part of a two-part series that will describe those changes and recommend guidelines for the selection, use, and maintenance of light emitting diode light-curing units (LED LCUs). This paper (Part 1) discusses terminology, clinical studies, the development of LCUs in dentistry, the aims of light-curing, and the need to deliver an adequate amount of energy. The interaction between light source and material is briefly described to demonstrate the complex nature of the resin photopolymerisation process.

Light Curing in Dentistry

The ability to light cure resins 'on demand' in the mouth has revolutionized dentistry. However, there is a widespread lack of understanding of what is required for successful light curing in the mouth. Most instructions simply tell the user to 'light cure for xx seconds' without describing any of the nuances of how to successfully light cure a resin. This article provides a brief description of light curing. At the end, some recommendations are made to help when purchasing a curing light and how to improve the use of the curing light.

The dental curing light: A potential health risk

Powerful blue-light emitting dental curing lights are used in dental offices to photocure resins in the mouth. In addition, many dental personnel use magnification loupes. This study measured the effect of magnification loupes on the "blue light hazard" when the light from a dental curing light was reflected off a human tooth. Loupes with 3.5x magnification (Design for Vision, Carl Zeiss, and Quality Aspirator) and 2.5x magnification (Design for Vision and Quality Aspirator) were placed at the entrance of an integrating sphere connected to a spectrometer (USB 4000, Ocean Optics). A model with human teeth was placed 40 cm away and in line with this sphere. The light guide tip of a broad-spectrum Sapphire Plus (Den-Mat) curing light was positioned at a 45° angle from the facial surface of the central incisor. The spectral radiant power reflected from the teeth was recorded five times with the loupes over the entrance into the sphere. The maximum permissible cumulative exposure times in an 8-hr day were calculated using guidelines set by the ACGIH. It was concluded that at a 40 cm distance, the maximum permissible cumulative daily exposure time to light reflected from the tooth was approximately 11 min without loupes. The weighted blue irradiance values were significantly different for each brand of loupe (Fisher's PLSD p < 0.05) and were up to eight times greater at the pupil than when loupes were not used. However, since the linear dimensions of the resulting images would be 2.5 to 3.5x larger on the retina, the image area was increased by the square of the magnification and the effective blue light hazard was reduced compared to without the loupes. Thus, although using magnification loupes increased the irradiance received at the pupil, the maximum cumulative daily exposure time to reflected light was increased up to 28 min. Further studies are required to determine the ocular hazards of a focused stare when using magnification loupes and the effects of other curing lights used in the dental office.

Anterior composite restorations in clinical practice: findings from a survey with general dental practitioners

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess technical preferences of general dental practitioners when restoring anterior composite restorations. How the level of clinical experience or post-graduate training infuenced their options was also tested.

Material and Methods

A cross-sectional study was performed using a questionnaire with general dental practitioners (GDPs) (n=276) in Southern Brazil. Information regarding post graduation training (specialization, master's or PhD degree) and linical experience (years since completing graduation) were gathered. The options regarding anterior composite restorations (type of composite, adhesive system, light curing unit, polishing procedures and rubber dam use) were collected. Data were submitted to descriptive analysis and associations were tested.

Results

Response rate was 68% (187). GDPs selected microhybrid composite (52%) and 2-step total etch adhesive system (77%). LED was the preferred method of activation for 72.8%. Immediate polishing was preferred by 75%, using a combination of techniques. Most of the respondents (74.3%) did not use rubber dam. More experienced clinicians used more halogen lights (p<0.022), performed more light monitoring (p<0.001) and were resistant to use rubber dam (p<0.012). Dentists with post-graduation training used 3-etch-and-rinse system more frequently (p<0.04), usually monitored light intensity (p<0.014) and placed rubber dam more frequently (p<0.044).

Conclusions

Hybrid composite, simplifed adhesives, LED units and immediate polishing were preferred by Southern Brazilian dentists for anterior composite restorations. Few dentists used rubber dam to perform composite restorations in anterior teeth. Clinical experience and post-graduation training infuenced the dentists' choices.

Contemporary issues in light curing

This review article will help clinicians understand the important role of the light curing unit (LCU) in their offices. The importance of irradiance uniformity, spectral emission, monitoring the LCU, infection control methods, recommended light exposure times, and learning the correct light curing technique are reviewed. Additionally, the consequences of delivering too little or too much light energy, the concern over leachates from undercured resins, and the ocular hazards are discussed. Practical recommendations are provided to help clinicians improve their use of the LCU so that their patients can receive safe and potentially longer lasting resin restorations.