RESUMEN

This study examined the effect of high irradiance and short exposure times on the depth of cure of six resin-based composites (RBCs). Bluephase PowerCure and the Valo X light-curing units (LCUs) were used to photocure bulk-fill RBCs for their recommended exposure times: Admira Fusion x-tra (AFX/20s), Aura Bulk Fill (ABF/20s), Filtek One Bulk Fill (FOB/20s), Opus Bulk Fill APS (OBF/30s), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TEC/10s) and Tetric PowerFill (TPF/10s). In addition, all bulk-fill RBCs were tested for depth of cure with one short 3 s exposure time from the Bluephase PowerCure or the Valo X in the Xtra Power mode. The RBCs (n = 10 per RBC) were inserted into a 4 mm diameter metal mold and covered by a polyester strip before being photocured. After 24 h of storage, uncured RBC was scraped away to determine the depth of cure of the RBCs. None of the RBCs achieved a 4 mm depth of cure. The depth of cure of TEC and TPF was unaffected by the exposure times (recommended or short) when using the Valo X. The depth of cure of AFX/20s, AFX/Xtra Power, ABF/Xtra Power, FOB/Xtra Power, and OBF/30s RBCs was greater when using Valo X compared to the Bluephase PowerCure. It was concluded that short exposure times can reduce depth of cure and should only be used for some RBCs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of mono and multi-wave light-curing units (LCUs) on the Knoop hardness of resin-based composites (RBC) that use different photoinitiators. METHODS: Central incisor-shaped specimens 12 mm long, 9 mm wide, and 1.5 mm thick were made from 2 RBCs that use different photoinitiators: Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent) - and Vittra APS (FGM), both A2E shade. They were light-cured with 4 different LCUs: two claimed to be multi-wave - VALO Grand (Ultradent) and Emitter Now Duo (Schuster); and two were monowave - Radii Xpert (SDI) and Elipar DeepCure-L (3 M Oral Care) using 2 different light exposure protocols: one 40 s exposure centered over the specimen; and two 20 s light exposures that delivered light from two positions to better cover the entire tooth. 16 groups with 10 specimens in each group were made. The Knoop hardness (KH, kg/mm2) was measured at the top and bottom of the specimen in the center and at the cervical, incisal, mesial, and distal peripheral regions. The active tip diameters (mm) and spectral radiant powers (mW/nm) of the LCUs were measured with and without the interposition of the RBC, as well as the radiant exposure beam profiles (J/cm²) delivered to the top of the RBCs. The data was analyzed using Three-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The VALO Grand (1029 mW) emitted twice the power of the Radii Xpert (500 mW). The KH values of VI and TN resin composite specimens were significantly affected by the LCU used (p < .001), the measurement location (p < .001), and the surface of the specimen (p < .001). LCUs with wider tip diameters produced greater Knoop hardness values at the peripheries of the 12 mm of long, 9 mm wide specimens. In general, the VALO Grand produced the highest KH values, followed by Elipar DeepCure-L, then by Radii Xpert. The Emitter Now Duo LCU produced the lowest values. Exposing the veneers from two locations reduced the differences between the LCUs and the effect of the measurement location. Only the VALO Grand could fully cover the composite veneer with light when the two locations were used. SIGNIFICANCE: The light tip must cover the entire restoration to photocure the RBC beneath the light tip.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The thickness and shade of a restoration will affect the transmission of light from the light-curing unit (LCU). This study determined the power (mW), spectral radiant power (mW/nm), and beam profile of different LCUs through various thicknesses and shades of a CAD-CAM resin composite (BRAVA Block, FGM). Five thicknesses: 0.5; 0.75; 1.0; 1.5, and 2.0 mm, in three shades: Bleach; A2 and A3.5 of a CAD-CAM resin (n = 5). Two single-peak LCUs: EL, Elipar DeepCure-S (3M Oral Care); and OP, Optilight Max (Gnatus), and one multiple-peak LCU: VL, VALO Grand (Ultradent), were used. The LCUs were positioned touching the surface of the BRAVA Block. The power and emission spectrum were measured using a fiberoptic spectrometer attached to an integrating sphere, and the beam profiles using a laser beam profiler. The effect of the material thickness on the light attenuation coefficients was determined. VL and EL delivered more homogeneous beam profiles than OP. The type of the BRAVA Block had a significant effect on the transmitted power, and wavelengths of transmitted light (p < 0.001). There was an exponential reduction in the power and emission spectrum as the thickness of the BRAVA Block increased (p < 0.001). The light transmission through the A2 shade was least affected by the thickness (p < 0.001). The attenuation coefficient was higher for the violet light and higher for A3.5 than the A2 or Bleach shades. No violet light from the VL could be detected at the bottom of 2.0 mm of the BRAVA Block.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the in vitro pulpal temperature rise (ΔT) within the pulp chamber when low- and high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites are photo-cured using laser or contemporary light curing units (LCUs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The light output from five LCUs was measured. Non-retentive Class I and V cavities were prepared in one upper molar. Two T-type thermocouples were inserted into the pulp chamber. After the PT values reached 32°C under simulated pulp flow (0.026 mL/min), both cavities were restored with: Filtek One Bulk Fill (3 M), Filtek Bulk Fill Flow (3 M), Tetric PowerFill (Ivoclar Vivadent), or Tetric PowerFlow (Ivoclar Vivadent). The tooth was exposed as follows: Monet Laser (1 and 3 s), PowerCure (3 and 20 s), PinkWave (3 and 20 s), Valo X (5 and 20 s) and SmartLite Pro (20 s). The ΔT data were subjected to one-way ANOVA followed by Scheffe's post hoc test. RESULTS: Monet 1 s (1.9 J) and PinkWave 20 s (30.1 J) delivered the least and the highest amount of energy, respectively. Valo X and PinkWave used for 20 s produced the highest ΔT values (3.4-4.1°C). Monet 1 s, PinkWave 3 s, PowerCure 3 s (except FB-Flow) and Monet 3 s for FB-One and TP-Fill produced the lowest ΔT values (0.9-1.7°C). No significant differences were found among composites. CONCLUSIONS: Short 1- to 3-s exposures produced acceptable temperature rises, regardless of the composite. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The energy delivered to the tooth by the LCUs affects the temperature rise inside the pulp. The short 1-3 s exposure times used in this study delivered the least amount of energy and produced a lower temperature rise. However, the RBC may not have received sufficient energy to be adequately photo-cured.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effect of thickness of high-translucency (HT) CAD/CAM materials on irradiance and beam profile from a blue light-emitting diode light-curing unit (LCU) and on the degree of conversion (DC) and maximum polymerization rate (Rpmax ) of a light-cured resin cement (LCC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The direct output from the LCU, the light transmission and irradiance ratio (IR) through one conventional composite and nine HT CAD/CAM materials (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, or 2.0-mm thick; n = 5) were measured with a integrating sphere coupled to a spectrometer. The light beam was assessed with a beam profiler camera. The DC at 600 s and the Rpmax of one LCC was determined using a Fourier transform infrared spectrometer (n = 5). Data were analyzed by ANOVA followed by Tukey's tests, and Dunnett's test was also used for irradiance data (α = 0.05). RESULTS: A significant decrease in irradiance through all materials occurred as thickness increased. Thin CAD/CAM materials improved light homogeneity, which decreased with the increase in thickness. The DC of the LCC directly exposed to light was the same as when exposed to 45%, 25%, 15%, or 5% IRs. Rpmax decreased with the decrease in IR. CONCLUSIONS: Although the HT CAD/CAM materials reduced the irradiance from the LCU, minor effects were observed in the LCC's DC. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Despite the light attenuation of blue light through different CAD/CAM materials that were up to 2-mm thick, the degree of conversion of one brand of light-cured resin cement was clinically acceptable when the LCU was used for 30 s.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Abstract The thickness and shade of a restoration will affect the transmission of light from the light-curing unit (LCU). This study determined the power (mW), spectral radiant power (mW/nm), and beam profile of different LCUs through various thicknesses and shades of a CAD-CAM resin composite (BRAVA Block, FGM). Five thicknesses: 0.5; 0.75; 1.0; 1.5, and 2.0 mm, in three shades: Bleach; A2 and A3.5 of a CAD-CAM resin (n = 5). Two single-peak LCUs: EL, Elipar DeepCure-S (3M Oral Care); and OP, Optilight Max (Gnatus), and one multiple-peak LCU: VL, VALO Grand (Ultradent), were used. The LCUs were positioned touching the surface of the BRAVA Block. The power and emission spectrum were measured using a fiberoptic spectrometer attached to an integrating sphere, and the beam profiles using a laser beam profiler. The effect of the material thickness on the light attenuation coefficients was determined. VL and EL delivered more homogeneous beam profiles than OP. The type of the BRAVA Block had a significant effect on the transmitted power, and wavelengths of transmitted light (p < 0.001). There was an exponential reduction in the power and emission spectrum as the thickness of the BRAVA Block increased (p < 0.001). The light transmission through the A2 shade was least affected by the thickness (p < 0.001). The attenuation coefficient was higher for the violet light and higher for A3.5 than the A2 or Bleach shades. No violet light from the VL could be detected at the bottom of 2.0 mm of the BRAVA Block.

RESUMEN

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Some light-emitting diode polymerization lights have been promoted as multiple peak or polywave lights that use multiple light-emitting diodes to produce both violet and blue light. However, whether the addition of violet light is required to light-activate resin cements that use bis(4-methoxybenzoyl)diethylgermane (Ivocerin) as the photoinitiator is unclear. PURPOSE: This in vitro study evaluated the effect of violet, blue, or a combination of violet and blue light through ceramic on the degree of conversion of 2 resin cements that use either camphorquinone or Ivocerin as the photoinitiator. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Bluephase Style polywave light-emitting diode polymerizing unit delivering 6.4 J/cm2 of violet and blue light was used. This comprised 1.4 J/cm2 of violet (385 to 420 nm) and 5.0 J/cm2 of blue light (420 to 515 nm). The light-emitting diode emitters in a second modified Bluephase Style were connected directly to a power supply so that either just violet (1.4 J/cm2) or just blue (5.0 J/cm2) light was emitted. RelyX Veneer and Variolink Esthetic LC resin cements were either directly light-activated or through 0.5 or 1.5 mm of lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS e.max CAD). The degree of conversion was monitored by using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. Data were subject to a 3-way analysis of variance followed by the Tukey honest significant difference multiple comparison tests (α=.05). RESULTS: All factors had a significant effect (P<.001). Increasing the ceramic thickness decreased the degree of conversion only for RelyX Veneer cement (P<.001). The effect of the thickness of ceramic was most noticeable when just violet light was delivered to RelyX Veneer. A significant reduction (P<.001) was found in the degree of conversion of RelyX Veneer when just violet light was delivered. Variolink Esthetic LC had significantly higher degree of conversion values than RelyX Veneer, irrespective of the light type used (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: A multiple-peak light is not required to photopolymerize a resin cement that uses either camphorquinone or Ivocerin as its photoinitiator. Adding the violet light produced no significant increase in the degree of conversion of the Variolink Esthetic LC cement.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of human saliva decontamination protocols on bond strength of resin cement to zirconia (Y-PSZ), wettability, and microbial decontamination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Zirconia plates were sandblasted and divided into (a) not contaminated, (b) contaminated with human saliva and: (c) not cleaned, (d) cleaned with air-water spray, (e) cleaned with 70% ethanol, (f) cleaned with Ivoclean, or (g) cleaned with nonthermal atmospheric plasma (NTAP). The wettability and microbial decontamination of the surfaces were determined after saliva contamination or cleaning. Monobond Plus (Ivoclar Vivadent) was applied after cleaning, followed by Variolink LC (Ivoclar Vivadent). The samples were stored 1 week before shear bond strength (SBS) testing, and data (SBS and wettability) were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey test (α = .05). RESULTS: Saliva contamination reduced SBS to zirconia compared to not contaminated. Both Ivoclean and NTAP produced higher SBS compared to not cleaned and were not significantly different from the not contaminated. Ivoclean produced the highest contact angle, and NTAP the lowest. With the exception of using just water-spray, all cleaning protocols decontaminated the specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Both Ivoclean and NTAP overcame the effects of saliva contamination, producing an SBS to zirconia comparable to the positive control. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dental ceramics should be cleaned prior to resin cementation to eliminate the effects of human saliva contamination, and Ivoclean and NTAP are considered suitable materials for this purpose.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The effects of tooth brushing could affect the long-term esthetic outcome of composite restorations. This study evaluated the effect of two different emission spectrum light-curing units on the surface roughness, roughness profile, topography and microhardness of bulk-fill composites after in vitro toothbrushing. Valo (multiple-peak) and Demi Ultra (single-peak) curing lights were each used for 10s to polymerize three bulk-fill resin composites: Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TET) and Surefil SDR Flow (SDR). After 30,000 reciprocal strokes in a toothbrushing machine, the roughness profile, surface roughness, surface morphology, and microhardness were examined. Representative SEM images were also obtained. When light-cured with the Demi Ultra, SDR showed the most loss in volume compared to the other composites and higher volume loss compared to when was light-cured with Valo. The highest surface roughness and roughness profile values were found in SDR after toothbrushing, for both light-curing units tested. FBF always had the greatest microhardness values. Light-curing TET with Valo resulted in higher microhardness compared to when using the Demi Ultra. Confocal and SEM images show that toothbrushing resulted in smoother surfaces for FBF and TET. All composites exhibited surface volume loss after toothbrushing. The loss in volume of SDR depended on the light-curing unit used. Toothbrushing can alter the surface roughness and superficial aspect of some bulk-fill composites. The choice of light-curing unit did not affect the roughness profile, but, depending on the composite, it affected the microhardness.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Resumo A combinação da localização da restauração, a preferência de mão do operador ao utilizar aparelhos fotopolimerizadores (AFP) com luz emitida por diodo (LED) e o formato do AFP podem afetar a quantidade de luz fornecida à restauração. O objetivo foi avaliar o efeito de operadores canhotos e destros, a posição do operador (dentista ou auxiliar), e o formato do AFP na irradiância, energia radiante e espectro de luz entregue ao mesmo dente posterior. Dois AFP foram testados: um com formato angulado, onda única Radii-Cal (SDI, Victoria, Australia) e um formato reto multi-pico Valo Cordless (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA). Os valores de irradiância (mW/cm²), energia radiante (J/cm²) e espectro de luz foram medidos utilizando um sensor no segundo molar superior esquerdo. A irradiância e energia radiante foram analisados utilizando ANOVA 3 fatores seguido por teste de Tukey (a=0.05). O espectro de luz (nm) foi analisado de forma descritiva. A interação entre o formato do AFP, posição do operador e preferência de mão foram significativamente influentes na irradiância e energia radiante (P<0.001). Em todos os casos, Valo teve irradiância significativamente maior que Radii-Cal. A mão dominante e a posição do operador afetaram a irradiância e energia radiante com o Valo. Posição do operador e acesso afetou a irradiância e exposição radiante entregue ao segundo molar superior esquerdo. A irradiância e exposição radiante teve melhores resultados quando AFP foi utilizado com a mão direita pelo operador posicionado na cadeira do lado direito e mão esquerda do operador posicionado do lado esquerdo da cadeira. Estes resultados podem levar a uma melhor polimerização da resina composta.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Abstract: The effects of tooth brushing could affect the long-term esthetic outcome of composite restorations. This study evaluated the effect of two different emission spectrum light-curing units on the surface roughness, roughness profile, topography and microhardness of bulk-fill composites after in vitro toothbrushing. Valo (multiple-peak) and Demi Ultra (single-peak) curing lights were each used for 10s to polymerize three bulk-fill resin composites: Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TET) and Surefil SDR Flow (SDR). After 30,000 reciprocal strokes in a toothbrushing machine, the roughness profile, surface roughness, surface morphology, and microhardness were examined. Representative SEM images were also obtained. When light-cured with the Demi Ultra, SDR showed the most loss in volume compared to the other composites and higher volume loss compared to when was light-cured with Valo. The highest surface roughness and roughness profile values were found in SDR after toothbrushing, for both light-curing units tested. FBF always had the greatest microhardness values. Light-curing TET with Valo resulted in higher microhardness compared to when using the Demi Ultra. Confocal and SEM images show that toothbrushing resulted in smoother surfaces for FBF and TET. All composites exhibited surface volume loss after toothbrushing. The loss in volume of SDR depended on the light-curing unit used. Toothbrushing can alter the surface roughness and superficial aspect of some bulk-fill composites. The choice of light-curing unit did not affect the roughness profile, but, depending on the composite, it affected the microhardness.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Contemporary dentistry literally cannot be performed without use of resin-based restorative materials. With the success of bonding resin materials to tooth structures, an even wider scope of clinical applications has arisen for these lines of products. Understanding of the basic events occurring in any dental polymerization mechanism, regardless of the mode of activating the process, will allow clinicians to both better appreciate the tremendous improvements that have been made over the years, and will also provide valuable information on differences among strategies manufacturers use to optimize product performance, as well as factors under the control of the clinician, whereby they can influence the long-term outcome of their restorative procedures.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Abstract Contemporary dentistry literally cannot be performed without use of resin-based restorative materials. With the success of bonding resin materials to tooth structures, an even wider scope of clinical applications has arisen for these lines of products. Understanding of the basic events occurring in any dental polymerization mechanism, regardless of the mode of activating the process, will allow clinicians to both better appreciate the tremendous improvements that have been made over the years, and will also provide valuable information on differences among strategies manufacturers use to optimize product performance, as well as factors under the control of the clinician, whereby they can influence the long-term outcome of their restorative procedures.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Abstract 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.

Resumo Este estudo mediu a potência (mW), irradiância (mW/cm2) e espectro da luz (mW/cm2/nm) emitida por 22 fontes de luz (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) disponíveis comercialmente. A potência emitida pelas fontes de luz foi medida usando um medidor laboratorial de potencia com grade a laser. A área (cm²) da ponta ativa efetiva das fontes de luz foi medida com paquímetro digital e utilizada para calcular a irradiância emitida. O simulador de paciente-MARC (MARC - PS) com espectrómetro (USB4000, Ocean Optics) foi usado para medir a irradiância e o espectro de luz emitida por cada fonte de luz na região anterior e posterior. Esta medição foi repetida por três vezes em dois sensores localizados na região anterior e posterior da arcada dentária. Os dados de irradiância foram analisados utilizando análise de variância em dois fatores, e os dados de potência foram analisados com análise de variância em fator único seguido pelo teste de Tukey (a=0,05). As fontes de luz Valo, Bluephase G2, Radii Plus emitiram irradiância semelhante tanto na região anterior como posterior com valores superiores ao mínimo de 500 mW/cm2. Seis fontes de luz emitiram irradiância menor que o recomendado (500 mW/cm2) quando usadas na região posterior: Kon-lux, Altlux II, Biolux Standard TL-01, Optilux 501, DX Turbo LED 1200 e duas quando usadas na região anterior: Kon-lux e Altlux II LCUs. As fontes Bluephase G2, Optilight Max emitiram os maiores valores de potência e as fontes de luz Altlux II e Biolux Standard emitiram os menores valores de potência. O espectro de luz das fontes LED de espectro único variou de forma evidente entre as fontes. As fontes LED multi pico de espectro emitiram espectros de luz similar para ambos os sensores. A fotoativação na região posterior tende a reduzir substancialmente a irradiância da maioria das fontes de luzes testadas.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The high irradiance and the different emission spectra from contemporary light curing units (LCU) may cause ocular damage. This study evaluated the ability of 15 eye protection filters: 2 glasses, 1 paddle design, and 12 dedicated filters to block out harmful light from a monowave (HP-3M ESPE) and a broad-spectrum (Valo, Ultradent) LED LCU. Using the anterior sensor in the MARC-Patient Simulator (BlueLight Analytics) the irradiance that was delivered through different eye protection filters was measured three times. The LCUs delivered a similar irradiance to the top of the filter. The mean values of the light that passed through the filters as percent of the original irradiance were analyzed using two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey test (a= 0.05). The emission spectra from the LCUs and through the filters were also obtained. Two-way ANOVA showed that the interaction between protective filters and LCUs significantly influenced the amount of light transmitted (p< 0.001). Tukey test showed that the amount of light transmitted through the protective filters when using the HP-3M-ESPE was significantly greater compared to when using the Valo, irrespective of the protective filter tested. When using the HP-3M-ESPE, the Glasses filter allowed significantly more light through, followed by XL 3000, ORTUS, Google Professional, Gnatus filters. The Valo filter was the most effective at blocking out the harmful light. Some protective filters were less effective at blocking the lower wavelengths of light (<420 nm). However, even in the worst scenario, the filters were able to block at least 97% of the irradiance.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Abstract The high irradiance and the different emission spectra from contemporary light curing units (LCU) may cause ocular damage. This study evaluated the ability of 15 eye protection filters: 2 glasses, 1 paddle design, and 12 dedicated filters to block out harmful light from a monowave (HP-3M ESPE) and a broad-spectrum (Valo, Ultradent) LED LCU. Using the anterior sensor in the MARC-Patient Simulator (BlueLight Analytics) the irradiance that was delivered through different eye protection filters was measured three times. The LCUs delivered a similar irradiance to the top of the filter. The mean values of the light that passed through the filters as percent of the original irradiance were analyzed using two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey test (a= 0.05). The emission spectra from the LCUs and through the filters were also obtained. Two-way ANOVA showed that the interaction between protective filters and LCUs significantly influenced the amount of light transmitted (p< 0.001). Tukey test showed that the amount of light transmitted through the protective filters when using the HP-3M-ESPE was significantly greater compared to when using the Valo, irrespective of the protective filter tested. When using the HP-3M-ESPE, the Glasses filter allowed significantly more light through, followed by XL 3000, ORTUS, Google Professional, Gnatus filters. The Valo filter was the most effective at blocking out the harmful light. Some protective filters were less effective at blocking the lower wavelengths of light (<420 nm). However, even in the worst scenario, the filters were able to block at least 97% of the irradiance.

Resumo A alta irradiância e diferentes espectros de luz emitidos por aparelhos fotopolimerizadores (Fp) podem causar danos oculares. Este estudo avaliou a capacidade de 15 filtros de proteção ocular em bloquear a luz prejudicial de um Fp convencional (HP-3M ESPE) e outro de largo espectro (Valo, Ultradent). Utilizando sensor anterior do equioamento MARC-Patient Simulator (BlueLight Analytics inc.) a irradiância que passou através dos diferentes filtros protetores foi mensuradas três vezes. Os valores médios da irradiância que passaram pelos filtros foram analisados usando Análise de variância fatorial e pelo teste de Tukey (a= 0.05). O espetro emitido dos Fps através dos filtros também foi obtido. A análise de variância mostrou que a interação entre os filtros protetores e Fps influenciou significantemente a quantidade de luz transmitida (p<0,001). O teste de Tukey mostrou que a quantidade que luz transmitida através dos protetores oculares quando usado o HP-3M ESPE foi significantemente maior quando comparado aos valores para o Valo, independentemente do filtro testado. Quando foi utilizado a fonte de luz HP-3M ESPE, o filtro de proteção ocular permitiu significativamente maior passagem de luz, seguido por XL 3000, ORTUS, Google Professional, e pelo filtro Gnatus. O filtro do Valo foi o mais eficiente ao bloquear a luz prejudicial. Alguns filtros foram menos eficazes ao bloquear menores comprimentos de onde (<420 nm). No entanto, mesmo no pior cenário dos resultados deste estudo, os filtros foram capazes de bloquear ao menos 97% da irradiância emitida pelas fontes de luz testadas.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)