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

Effect of Radiant Exposure on the Physical and Mechanical Properties of 10 Flowable and High-viscosity Bulk-fill Resin Composites

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of the different radiant exposures from a multipeak light curing unit on the physical and mechanical properties of flowable and high-viscosity bulk-fill resin-based composites (RBC).

METHODS

Five flowable bulk-fill RBCs (Tetric N-Flow Bulk-fill, Ivoclar Vivadent; Filtek Bulk Fill Flow, 3M Oral Care; Opus Bulk Fill Flow APS, FGM; Admira Fusion x-base, Voco and; and SDR Plus Bulk Fill Flowable, Dentsply Sirona) and five high-viscosity bulk-fill RBCs (Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-fill, Ivoclar Vivadent; Filtek One Bulk Fill, 3M Oral Care; Opus Bulk Fill APS, FGM; Admira Fusion x-tra, Voco; and SonicFill 2, Kerr) were photo-cured using a VALO Cordless light (Ultradent) for 10, 20, and 40 seconds at an irradiance of 1200, 800, or 400 mW/cm2, resulting in the delivery of 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, or 48 J/cm2. Post-gel shrinkage (Shr) was calculated using strain-gauge test. The degree of conversion (DC, %) was calculated using FTIR. Knoop hardness (KH, N/mm2) and elastic modulus (E, MPa) were measured at the top and bottom surfaces. Logarithmic regressions between the radiant exposures and mechanical properties were calculated. Radiodensity was calculated using digital radiographs. Data of Shr and radiodensity were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the DC, KH, and E data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA using split-plot repeated measurement tests followed by the Tukey test (a = 0.05).

RESULTS

Delivering higher radiant exposures produced higher Shr values (p<0.001) and higher DC values (R2=0.808-0.922; R2=0.648-0.914, p<0.001), KH (R2=0.707-0.952; R2=0.738-0.919; p<0.001), and E (R2=0.501-0.925; R2=0.823-0.919; p<0.001) values for the flowable and high-viscosity RBCs respectively. Lower KH, E and Shr were observed for the flowable bulk-fill RBCs. All bulk-fill RBCs had a radiopacity level greater than the 4-mm thick aluminum step wedge. The radiant exposure did not affect the radiopacity.

CONCLUSION

The Shr, DC, KH, and E values were highly correlated to the radiant exposure delivered to the RBCs. The combination of the higher irradiance for longer exposure time that resulted in radiant exposure between 24 J/cm2 to 48 J/cm2 produced better results than delivering 400 mW/cm2 for 40 s (16 J/cm2), and 800 mW/cm2 for 20 seconds (16 J/cm2) or 1200 mW/cm2 for 10 seconds (12 J/cm2). All the bulk-fill RBCs were sufficiently radiopaque compared to 4 mm of aluminum.

A Blinded Comparative Study of Four Commercially Available LEDs and a Laser Light Curing Device

OBJECTIVE

 This study determined the effectiveness of five light-curing units (LCUs; four light-emitting diode [LED] and one laser) used on different settings to photo-activate four conventional resin-based composites (RBCs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 A total of 108 RBC specimens were photo-activated in a white Delrin mold representing a mesial-occlusal-distal (MOD) class II restoration in a molar tooth. The proximal boxes were 5 mm deep, and the mesial-distal length was 12 mm. Immediately after photo-curing, the RBC specimens were immersed in a solvent to remove the uncured materials, after which they were photographed and deidentified. A Research Electronic Data Capture survey was created using these images and sent to respondents who blindly assessed the ability of the various LCUs to photo-cure the MOD restorations.

RESULTS

 There were significant differences in how the five curing lights had cured RBCs. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), pairwise t-test, Welch's one-way ANOVA, and Kruskal-Wallis rank test in the blinded survey data showed significant differences between the LED curing lights used for two 10-second cures and the laser curing light used for 1 second, and LED lights at lower settings.

CONCLUSION

 There was a significant difference in how the curing lights could photo-cure the RBCs used in this study. The laser curing light used for 1 second produced the worst results in all four RBCs.

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.

Power output from 12 brands of contemporary LED light-curing units measured using 2 brands of radiometers

Background

Given the increasing use of photo-activated resins in dentistry, dentists and researchers need a user-friendly dental radiometer to measure the power output from dental light-curing units (LCUs).

Objective

Our goal was to measure the accuracy of two brands of dental radiometers in reporting the power (mW) from twelve brands of contemporary LCUs compared to a ‘gold standard’ (GS) reference value obtained from an integrating sphere attached to a fiberoptic spectroradiometer.

Methods

The power output was measured from two units of 12 brands of LCUs, five times on the ‘‘GS” system, five times on two Bluephase Meter II dental radiometers, and five times on two Mini Gig hand-held spectroradiometers. The emission spectrum was also recorded using the ‘GS’ integrating sphere. The power values reported by each meter were subjected to t-tests to compare the two examples of each LCU, and 3-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s post-hoc tests. Regression analyses were also performed to determine the relationship between the data from the hand-held radiometers and the ‘GS’ integrating sphere.

Results

There was a large difference in the power values (mW) and the emission spectra from the 12 brands of LCUs on their standard-settings (p<0.001). Except for one LCU (Dental Spark @ 15.1%), the differences between the two LCUs of the same brand were less than 5.3% when measured using the ‘GS’ integrating sphere. Regression analyses showed a highly significant agreement between the power values reported from the two brands of radiometers and the ‘GS’ integrating sphere (R² > 98%).

Conclusion

We concluded that the power values reported from both brands of dental radiometers we tested were accurate, provided that the light source did not emit wavelengths of light that were beyond the radiometer’s detection limit.