Reliability of three dental radiometers

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.

Intensity output and effectiveness of light curing units in dental offices

BACKGROUND

The aims of the study were measuring the light intensity of light curing units used in Qazvin's dental offices, determining the relationship between the clinical age of these units and their light intensity, and identifying the reasons for repairing them.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, the output intensity of 95 light curing devices was evaluated using a radiometer. The average output intensity was divided up into four categories (less than 200, 200-299, 300-500, and more than 500 mW/cm2). In addition, a questionnaire was designed to obtain information mainly about the type, clinical age, and frequency of maintenance of the units and the reasons for fixing them. Data were analyzed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov, chi-squared, and t-tests (p< 0.05) on SPSS 24.

RESULTS

A total of 95 light curing units were examined, with 61 (64.2%) of them being of the LED type and 34 (35.8%) of the QTH type. While average light intensity in LED units was significantly higher than in QTH devices, the two device types were not significantly different regarding desirable light intensity (i.e., ≥ 300 mw/cm2). A negative correlation was observed between clinical age and light intensity. In addition, bulb replacement in QTH devices was over three times as much as in LED units. Also, repairing QTHs was more than twice as much frequent as fixing LEDs. The most common reason for repair was the breakage of the tip of the device.

CONCLUSIONS

The light intensity of LED units is significantly higher than that of QTH devices, and the frequency of repairing in QTHs was significantly more than in LEDs. Furthermore, light intensity decreases with aging, and dentists should regularly monitor the conditions of light units. Key words:Light curing unit, radiometer, light intensity, dental equipment, dental offices.