Evaluation of Eye Protection Filters Used with Broad-Spectrum and Conventional LED Curing Lights

Fluorescence-aided identification technique using a low-cost violet flashlight and rotatory instruments for dental trauma splint removal

BACKGROUND/AIM

Removing resin composites used for bonding dental trauma splints may result in irreversible damage to the enamel. This in vitro study evaluated the influence of additional violet illumination and different bur types on damage caused to tooth enamel.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifteen maxillary models with four bovine incisor teeth were prepared. All models were scanned using a laboratory scanning system (s600 ARTI; Zirkonzahn). Six experimental groups (n = 10) were generated by two study factors: lighting type (three levels), (1) low-cost (5-7 US$) violet LED flashlight (LUATEK, LT 408); (2) VALO Cordless light curing unit (Ultradent) with black lens; or (3) without additional illumination; and rotatory instrument (two levels), (1) diamond bur or (2) multifluted tungsten-carbide bur. New scanning was performed after splint removal, and the generated files were superimposed on the initial scans using Cumulus software. The light emitted by both violet light sources was characterized by using integrating sphere and beam profile. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of enamel damage and two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc was used at an α = 0.05.

RESULTS

The use of low-cost violet flashlight that emitted the violet peak light at 385 nm and VALO Cordless with black lens at 396 nm resulted in significantly lower damage to the enamel surface than those in the groups without additional violet light (p < .001). An interaction between rotatory instruments and lighting was found. When no additional violet lighting was used, the diamond bur presented higher mean and maximum depth values.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluorescence lighting facilitated the removal of remnant resin composite dental trauma splints, leading to less invasive treatment. The diamond bur resulted in higher enamel damage than that affected by the multifluted bur when no violet lighting was used. A low-cost violet flashlight is a useful fluorescence-aided identification technique for removing resin composite dental trauma splints.

Dynamic UAV Phenotyping for Rice Disease Resistance Analysis Based on Multisource Data

Bacterial blight poses a threat to rice production and food security, which can be controlled through large-scale breeding efforts toward resistant cultivars. Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) remote sensing provides an alternative means for the infield phenotype evaluation of crop disease resistance to relatively time-consuming and laborious traditional methods. However, the quality of data acquired by UAV can be affected by several factors such as weather, crop growth period, and geographical location, which can limit their utility for the detection of crop disease and resistant phenotypes. Therefore, a more effective use of UAV data for crop disease phenotype analysis is required. In this paper, we used time series UAV remote sensing data together with accumulated temperature data to train the rice bacterial blight severity evaluation model. The best results obtained with the predictive model showed an R _p ² of 0.86 with an RMSE_p of 0.65. Moreover, model updating strategy was used to explore the scalability of the established model in different geographical locations. Twenty percent of transferred data for model training was useful for the evaluation of disease severity over different sites. In addition, the method for phenotypic analysis of rice disease we built here was combined with quantitative trait loci (QTL) analysis to identify resistance QTL in genetic populations at different growth stages. Three new QTLs were identified, and QTLs identified at different growth stages were inconsistent. QTL analysis combined with UAV high-throughput phenotyping provides new ideas for accelerating disease resistance breeding.

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.

The potential 'Blue Light Hazard' from LED Headlamps

Many dental personnel use light-emitting diode (LED) headlamps for hours every day. The potential retinal 'blue light hazard' from these white light headlamps is unknown.

METHODS

The spectral radiant powers received from direct and indirect viewing of an electronic tablet, an LED curing light, a halogen headlamp, and 6 brands of LED headlamps were measured using integrating spheres attached to fiberoptic spectroradiometers. The spectral radiant powers were measured both directly and indirectly at a 35 cm distance, and the maximum daily exposure times (t_MAX) were calculated.

RESULTS

The headlamps emitted very different radiant powers, emission spectra, and color temperatures (K). The total powers emitted at zero distance ranged from 47 mW from the halogen headlamp to 378 mW from the most powerful LED headlamp. The color temperatures from the headlamps ranged from 3098 K to 7253 K. The t_MAX exposure times in an 8-hour day when the headlamps were viewed directly at a distance of 35 cm were: 810 s from the halogen headlamp, 53 to 220 s from the LED headlamps, and 62 s from the LED curing light. Light from the LED headlamps that was reflected back from a white reference tile 35 cm away did not exceed the maximum permissible exposure time for healthy adults. Using a blue dental dam increased the amount of reflected blue light, but t_MAX was still greater than 24 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

White light LED headlamps emit very different spectra, and they all increase the retinal 'blue light hazard' compared to a halogen source. When the headlamps were viewed directly at a distance of 35 cm, the 'blue light hazard' from some headlamps was greater than from an LED curing light. Depending on the headlamp brand, t_MAX could be reached after only 53s. The light from the LED headlamps that was reflected back from a white surface that was 35 cm away did not exceed the maximum permissible ocular exposure limits for healthy adults.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Reflected white light from dental headlamps does not pose a blue light hazard for healthy adults. Direct viewing may be hazardous, but the hazard can be prevented by using the appropriate blue-light-blocking glasses.

Retinal damage related to high-intensity light-emitting diode exposure: An in vivo study

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the effects of high-intensity light-emitting diode (LED) light from a curing device on the retinas of Wistar rats.

METHODS

Six male Wistar rats were used, and their ocular structures were the focus of this study. During the photostimulation of each animal, the right eye of the animal, considered the control sample, was covered with a removable polyvinyl chloride cap, and the contralateral eye, the experimental sample, was exposed to high-intensity LED light, 3200 mW/cm² (VALO Ortho; Ultradent Products, South Jordan, Utah) for 144 seconds from a distance of 30 cm. The animals were exposed to the LED light 3 times on the same day to investigate if any acute inflammatory changes in the retina occurred. Seven days after the photostimulation sessions, the animals were anesthetized and perfused with paraformaldehyde solution. After which, the eyes were resected and processed histologically. The histologic sections were analyzed stereologically and histomorphometrically to measure the parameters of the retina under investigation.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant increase in total retinal volume in the experimental group because of the increased volume of the ganglion cell layers, inner plexiform layers, outer nuclear layers, and the cone and rod extensions. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of density. However, there was a statistically significant increase in the nuclear area of the cells in all the studied layers in the group exposed to high-intensity LED light. In addition, hyperchromatic cells that are suggestive of pyknosis were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

An acute but short protocol of exposure of high-intensity LED light to the eye caused morphometric alterations in the retinal structures, specifically in the nuclear area of the photosensitive cells.

Effectiveness of Using an Instructional Video in Teaching Light-Curing Technique

PURPOSE

To investigate dental students' ability to deliver satisfactory amounts of irradiance and radiant exposure to simulated cavities by teaching the light-curing technique using instructional video compared to verbal instructions.

METHODS

Students attended the didactic light-curing lecture explaining the light-curing technique. Participants were divided into two groups (n=60). Each participant light-cured a class III and a class I simulated cavities with sensors built-in a Managing Accurate Resin Curing-Patient Simulator (MARC-PS) system, using a multiple-emission-peak light-emitting-diode unit. Each student either 1) watched an instructional video (V) showing the light-curing technique, or 2) received individual verbal instruction (I). The light-curing performance, in terms of the mean irradiance and radiant exposure, was recorded. Each student performed light-curing again on the simulated cavities. Students' feedback for the corresponding teaching method was collected. Comparisons between before and after each instructional method were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Comparisons between both instructional methods were analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U-test (α=0.05).

RESULTS

The students' light-curing performance improved after both methods, as observed on the MARC-PS laptop monitor. The mean irradiance values were anterior-V=1280.6 (183.2), anterior-I=1318.0 (143.5), posterior-V=1337.5 (181.1), posterior-I=1317.6 (248.2) mW/cm². The mean radiant exposure values were for anterior-V=13.5 (2.7), anterior-I=13.3 (1.6), posterior-V=13.7 (1.9), posterior-I=13.7 (2.5) J/cm². No significant difference was found between both instruction methods. Students reported that each method was effective.

CONCLUSION

Using V was comparable to I and an effective tool for teaching the light-curing technique per the students' ability to deliver sufficient amounts of irradiance and radiant exposure to simulated cavities.

Antimicrobial Blue Light versus Pathogenic Bacteria: Mechanism, Application in the Food Industry, Hurdle Technologies and Potential Resistance

Blue light primarily exhibits antimicrobial activity through the activation of endogenous photosensitizers, which leads to the formation of reactive oxygen species that attack components of bacterial cells. Current data show that blue light is innocuous on the skin, but may inflict photo-damage to the eyes. Laboratory measurements indicate that antimicrobial blue light has minimal effects on the sensorial and nutritional properties of foods, although future research using human panels is required to ascertain these findings. Food properties also affect the efficacy of antimicrobial blue light, with attenuation or enhancement of the bactericidal activity observed in the presence of absorptive materials (for example, proteins on meats) or photosensitizers (for example, riboflavin in milk), respectively. Blue light can also be coupled with other treatments, such as polyphenols, essential oils and organic acids. While complete resistance to blue light has not been reported, isolated evidence suggests that bacterial tolerance to blue light may occur over time, especially through gene mutations, although at a slower rate than antibiotic resistance. Future studies can aim at characterizing the amount and type of intracellular photosensitizers across bacterial species and at assessing the oxygen-independent mechanism of blue light-for example, the inactivation of spoilage bacteria in vacuum-packed meats.

Effect of infection control barriers on the light output from a multi-peak light curing unit

OBJECTIVES

Curing lights cannot be sterilized and should be covered with an infection control barrier. This study evaluated the effect of barriers when applied correctly and incorrectly on the radiant power (mW), irradiance (mW/cm2), emission spectrum (mW/nm), and beam profile from a multi-peak light-curing unit (LCU).

METHODS

Five plastic barriers (VALO Grand, Ultradent; TIDIShield, TIDI Products; Disposa-Shield, Dentsply Sirona; Cure Sleeve, Kerr; Stretch and Seal, Betty Crocker) and one latex-based barrier (Curelastic, Steri-Shield) were tested. The radiant power (mW) and emission spectrum (mW/nm) from one multi-peak LCU (VALO Grand, Ultradent) was measured using an integrating sphere. LCU tip internal diameter (mm) was measured, then the tip area and irradiance (mW/cm2) were calculated. The beam profiles were measured using a laser beam profiler.

RESULTS

When applied correctly, the plastic barriers reduced the radiant power output by 5-8%, and the latex-based barrier by 16%. When the plastic seam or barrier opaque face was positioned over the LCU tip, the power output was reduced by 8-11%. When the plastic barriers were wrinkled, the power output was significantly reduced by 14-26%. The wrinkled latex-based barrier reduced by 28%, and further reduced the violet light. The beam profiles illustrated the importance of correctly barrier use without wrinkles over the tip.

CONCLUSIONS

Plastic barriers applied correctly reduced the light output (mW) by 5-8%. The barriers applied incorrectly significantly reduced the light output by 14-26%. The latex-based barrier wrinkled also reduced the amount of violet light.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Infection control curing light barriers should be used to prevent cross-infection between patients. However, they must be applied correctly to reduce their negative effects on the light output.

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.

Ocular hazards of curing light units used in dental practice - A systematic review

Objective

To examine the literature and summarize studies that describe the potential ocular hazards that are posed by different systems of light curing units mainly used in the dental clinics, to ensure the safety of the operator, patient and the auxiliary staff in the dental clinic.

Methods

This systematic review was reported and conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. The online databases PubMed and Google Scholar were used for data search. MeSH terms were used for PubMed search. Randomized controlled clinical trials, original studies and in-vitro studies conducted up to 2018 in English language were included in the review. Eight articles were included in the study after application of eligibility criteria, all of which were in accordance to the review protocol.

Results

The total wavelength dose received can cause Ocular damage which suggest that light intensity is correlated to the duration required to cause a certain level of damage, and we can substitute the long light exposure by using of a lower intensity light.

Conclusion

This review concludes that blue light poses maximum risk to cause retinal degeneration based on the evaluated studies. Most of the studies recommend the use of protective eyewear in order to limit exposure of the patient, operator and assistant to the LCUs. It is not advisable to stare directly into the light source and the recommended safe exposure times and distances for patient, operator and assistant must be strictly adhered to in the dental practice.

An Evaluation of the Light Output from 22 Contemporary Light Curing Units

This study measured the radiant power (mW), irradiance (mW/cm2) and emission spectra (mW/cm2/nm) of 22 new, or almost new, light curing units (LCUs): - Alt Lux II, BioLux Standard, Bluephase G2, Curing Light XL 3000, Demetron LC, DX Turbo LED 1200, EC450, EC500, Emitter C, Emitter D, KON-LUX, LED 3M ESPE, Led Lux II, Optilight Color, Optilight Max, Optilux 501, Poly Wireless, Radii cal, Radii plus, TL-01, VALO Cordless. These LCUs were either monowave or multiple peak light emitting diode (LED) units or quartz-tungsten-halogen LCUs used in anterior and posterior teeth. The radiant power emitted by the LCUs was measured by a laboratory grade laser power meter. The tip area (cm²) of the LCUs was measured and used to calculate the irradiance from the measured radiant power source. The MARC-Patient Simulator (MARC-PS) with a laboratory grade spectrometer (USB4000, Ocean Optics) was used to measure the irradiance and emission spectrum from each LCU three times at the sensor located on the facial of the maxillary central incisors and then separately at the occlusal of a maxillary second molar. The minimum acceptable irradiance level was set as 500 mW/cm2. Irradiance data was analyzed using two-way ANOVA and the radiant power data was analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey test (a=0.05). In general, the irradiance was reduced at the molar tooth for most LCUs. Only the Valo, Bluephase G2 and Radii Plus delivered an irradiance similar to the anterior and posterior sensors greater than 500 mW/cm2. KON-LUX, Altlux II, Biolux Standard, TL-01, Optilux 501, DX Turbo LED 1200 LCUs delivered lower irradiance values than the recommended one used in molar region, KON-LUX and Altlux II LCUs used at the maxillary incisors. Bluephase G2 and Optilight Max delivered the highest radiant power and KON-LUX, Altlux II and Biolux Standard delivered the lowest power. The emission spectrum from the various monowave LED LCUs varied greatly. The multi-peak LCUs delivered similar emission spectra to both sensors.

Irradiance and Radiant Exposures Delivered by LED Light-Curing Units Used by a Left and Right-Handed Operator

Abstract The combination of the restoration location, the hand preference of the operator using the light-curing unit (LCU), and the design of the LCU all can have an impact on the amount of the light delivered to the restoration. To evaluate the effect of left-handed or right-handed users, the position of the operator (dentist or assistant), and the LCU design on the irradiance, radiant exposure and emission spectrum delivered to the same posterior tooth. Two light emitting diode (LED) LCUs were tested: an angulated monowave LCU Radii-Cal (SDI, Victoria, Australia) and a straight aligned multi-peak LCU Valo Cordless (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA). The irradiance values (mW/cm2), radiant exposure (J/cm2) and emission spectrum were measured using a sensor in maxillary left second molar tooth. The irradiance and radiant exposure were analyzed using three-way ANOVA followed by Tukey test (a=0.05). The emission spectra (nm) were analyzed descriptively. The interaction between LCU design, operator position, and hand preference significantly influenced the irradiance and radiant exposure (P<0.001). In all cases, Valo delivered significantly higher irradiance than Radii-Cal. The handedness and the operator position affected the irradiance and radiant exposure delivered from Valo. Operator position and access affect the irradiance and radiant exposure delivered to the maxillary left second molar. The irradiance and radiant exposure can be greater when a right-hand operator is positioned on the right side of the chair and a left-hand operator is positioned on the left side of the chair. This may result in better resin composite polymerization.

Corneal Vibrations during Intraocular Pressure Measurement with an Air-Puff Method

Introduction

The paper presents a commentary on the method of analysis of corneal vibrations occurring during eye pressure measurements with air-puff tonometers, for example, Corvis. The presented definition and measurement method allow for the analysis of image sequences of eye responses—cornea deformation. In particular, the outer corneal contour and sclera fragments are analysed, and 3D reconstruction is performed.

Methods

On this basis, well-known parameters such as eyeball reaction or corneal response are determined. The next steps of analysis allow for automatic and reproducible separation of four different corneal vibrations. These vibrations are associated with (1) the location of the maximum of cornea deformation; (2) the cutoff area measured in relation to the cornea in a steady state; (3) the maximum of peaks occurring between applanations; and (4) the other characteristic points of the corneal contour.

Results

The results obtained enable (1) automatic determination of the amplitude of vibrations; (2) determination of the frequency of vibrations; and (3) determination of the correlation between the selected types of vibrations.

Conclusions

These are diagnostic features that can be directly applied clinically for new and archived data.