Efficiency of light curing units in a government dental school

Effect of Light Curing Distance on Microhardness Profiles of Bulk-Fill Resin Composites

Bulk-fill (BF) dental resin composites are made to be polymerized in increments of up to 5 mm rather than the 2 mm increment recommended for conventional composites. This project aimed to determine microhardness (MH) profiles of BF resin composites at different depths and varying light cure (LC) distances from the light source in an attempt to mimic varying clinical situations. Forty-eight cylindrical specimens (4 mm diameter and 6 mm height) were prepared from 3 BF composites: Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill (TBF), Filtek One Bulk-Fill (FBF), and Sonic-Fill 2 (SF2). Four different distances (0, 2, 4, and 6 mm) from the LC unit were investigated. Vickers MH was measured at the top and bottom of the samples and at every 1 mm, by creating 3 indentations at each depth. The bottom-top microhardness ratio (MHR) and percentage reduction in MHR were also measured. Data was analyzed using mixed-model repeated-measure ANOVA at 0.05 significance level. The main variables effects “material, LC distance, and depth” were significant (p < 0.001). Increasing LC distance and the depth of the tested BF significantly affected Vickers MH and MHR. None of the tested BF materials had sufficient MHR at the depths of 4–6 mm. SF2 showed the least MHR reduction.

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.

Performance of Multiple Light-curing Units used by Dental Students

Aim:

To investigate the performance of multiple Light-curing Units (LCUs) of different manufacturers used in a dental student clinical setting.

Background:

Manufacturers claim that the irradiance values of the LCUs stay stable over time. However, this may not be accurate among the different units.

Objective:

This study investigated the performance in terms of the irradiance, radiant exposure, and DOC of multiple LCUs of different types used in a dental student clinical setting.

Methods:

Four different LCU were investigated (n=5 units/LCU manufacturer): three Light-Emitting-Diodes (LED) units (Demi Ultra, Mini LED, and E-Morlit) and one quartz-tungsten-halogen (QTH) (PolyluxII). Irradiance and radiant exposure were collected [Managing Accurate Resin Curing-Patient Simulator (MARC-PS)](n=5 readings/unit/tooth). Depth of Cure (DOC) was performed (ISO 4049:2009standards) using a micro-hybrid composite (n=5/unit). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and ANOVA followed by Student-Newman-Keuls and Tukey post hoc methods, respectively (α=0.05).

Results:

Using the MARC-PS anterior and posterior teeth sensors, respectively, the mean irradiance for Demi Ultra was (1625.7±38.8) and (1250.4±25.2); Mini LED (1381.1±37.8) and (1058.1±27.3); E-Morlit (1831.1±294.7) and (1545.2±176.0); and Polylux II (932.4±368.5) and (840.4±353.4)mW/cm2. The radiant exposure range was 16-38 J/cm2 for all LCUs. LCUs’ mean DOC ranged from 2.9 to 3.1 mm. Significant differences in irradiance and radiant exposure values were detected among the multiple units and manufacturers. Significant differences in DOC values among the Demi Ultra and Polylux II units were detected. DOC met the standards except for onePolylux II unit.

Conclusion:

The irradiance and radiant exposure values were not the same among the different units, regardless of the manufacturers’ claim of the irradiance values stability over time. Polymerization was not compromised except for one QTH unit per the DOC measurements. Itis highly recommended to closely monitor LCUs used in dental student clinical areas due to the high demand in this type of setting.

Assessment of the radiant emittance of damaged/contaminated dental light-curing tips by spectrophotometric methods

Objectives

This study investigated the effects of physically damaged and resin-contaminated tips on radiant emittance, comparing them with new undamaged, non-contaminated tips using 3 pieces of spectrophotometric laboratory equipment.

Materials and Methods

Nine tips with damage and/or resin contaminants from actual clinical situations were compared with a new tip without damage or contamination (control group). The radiant emittance was recorded using 3 spectrophotometric methods: a laboratory-grade thermopile, a laboratory-grade integrating sphere, and a portable light collector (checkMARC).

Results

A significant difference between the laboratory-grade thermopile and the laboratory-grade integrating sphere was found when the radiant emittance values of the control or damaged/contaminated tips were investigated (p < 0.05), but both methods were comparable to checkMARC (p > 0.05). Regardless of the method used to quantify the light output, the mean radiant emittance values of the damaged/contaminated tips were significantly lower than those of the control (p < 0.05). The beam profile of the damaged/contaminated tips was less homogeneous than that of the control.

Conclusions

Damaged/contaminated tips can reduce the radiant emittance output and the homogeneity of the beam, which may affect the energy delivered to composite restorations. The checkMARC spectrophotometer device can be used in dental offices, as it provided values close to those produced by a laboratory-grade integrated sphere spectrophotometer. Dentists should assess the radiant emittance of their light-curing units to ensure optimal curing in photoactivated, resin-based materials.

Irradiance of Different Curing Modes of Common Light Cure Devices: An In Vitro Study

Aim:

The aim of this study was to test the irradiance values of different curing modes of commonly available light cure devices (LCDs).

Materials and Methods:

An in vitro investigation was carried out to compare the irradiance output of 10 brands of LCDs available in Saudi Arabia measured using a digital radiometer. Values were recorded for three time points when applicable (0, 10, and 20s). This technique was repeated five times for each LCD. Normal, high-intensity, and soft-start modes were evaluated for all brands with the features available. Irradiance values between brands were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Bonferroni method. Changes in irradiance between different time points were analyzed using one sample t test for normal and high-intensity modes and using paired t test for soft-start mode. All comparisons were carried out at 0.05 significance level.

Results:

The highest values were reported for Ortholux Luminous, Elipar DeepCure-S, Elipar DeepCure, and KaVo mini-LED with values above 1000 mW/cm². All LCDs showed values above 600 mW/cm². Three LCDs had high-intensity mode and only one device had soft-start mode. Changes over the different time points were not statistically significant exept for soft-start mode.

Conclusion:

All tested LCDs had irradiance values sufficient for adequate polymerization of resin composite. Only four of these are capable of curing bulk-fill composites.

Evaluation of intensity standards of tungsten-halogen and led curing units

Current evidence indicates that the minimum light intensity of photo curing units required to polymerize in a reliable way a composite resin, in increments of 2mm, is 300mW/cm2. The recent introduction of new generations of composite resin materials for large volume increments, partially contrasts with ISO 4049 (2009), calling for the use of light intensity of 1,000mW/cm2. Therefore, it is considered relevant to carry out periodic measurements of the emission intensity of light-curing units of clinical use. The aim of this study was to test the intensity [mW/cm2] of a representative sample of tungsten-halogen and LED photopolymerization units used in private and public health service in different areas of the Valparaíso Region in Chile. This was achieved through the use of dental radiometers, without considering the variables of intensity modification over time (either spontaneously, by undesirable inherent characteristics of the device, or by programs of intensity modification in time), or the density of accumulated power needed. This in vitro diagnostic test, evaluated a sample of 507 units, 107 halogen and 400 LED, for a period of around one month, using two radiometers as measuring instruments. For LED units the Bluephase Meter® radiometer, from Ivoclar-VivadentTM was used, and for halogen units we used the Coltolux® from ColténeTM. As a result, 85% of the LED and halogen units achieved the minimum requirements of intensity needed for the polymerization of conventional dental biomaterials. However, only 25% from the tested units achieved a power density of 1,000mW/cm2.