Department of Endodontics and Restorative Dental Medicine,
Study Programme of Dental Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Split
, Split
, Croatia
Aim To determine irradiance of light-curing units (LCUs) in dental offices in three Croatian cities and to compare irradiance values with the age and model of LCUs. Methods Private and public dental offices in three most prominent cities in Croatia (Rijeka, Split and Zagreb) were included in this study. In total, 195 LCUs were tested, using radiometer Ivoclar Bluephase Meter 2 for irradiance (mW/cm2 ). The minimum acceptable value was set at 400 mW/cm2. The age, model and difference between declared and measured irradiance of the LCUs were also determined. Of the total of 195 LCUs, 190 (98%) were LED (light-emitting diode) and 5 (2%) were QTH (quartz-tungsten – halogen). Results The mean age of tested LCUs was 4.43±3.4 years; the oldest was in Rijeka, 5.2±3.8 years. The overall mean irradiance for all three cities was 806.4 mW/cm2 (p=0.0004). Of all LCUs, 11.3% were considered clinically unacceptable with irradiance of less than 400 mW/cm2. Of all tested LCUs 42% (p=0.0005) had a 30% lower value of irradiance than the manufacturer of the LCU declared. In 73% tested LCUs, there was a matching between measured and declared irradiance. The age and model of LCUs had the most significant impact on irradiance. Conclusion The most commonly used LCU included in dental offices was LED. Mean irradiance was good enough to secure adequate polymerization of resin-based materials. Irradiance decreases with usage time of LCU.
Pratap B, Gupta R, Bhardwaj B, Nag M. Resin based restorative dental materials: characteristics and future perspectives. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2019;126–38.
2.
Knezevic A, Zeljezic D, Kopjar N, Duarte S, Jr, Tarle Z. In vitro biocompatibility of preheated giomer and microfilled-hybrid composite. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2018;286–97.
3.
Mazhari F, Ajami B, Moazzami S, Baghaee B, Hafez B. Microhardness of composite resin cured through different primary tooth thicknesses with different light intensities and curing times: in vitro study. Eur J Dent. 2016;203–9.
4.
Alshaafi M. Factors affecting polymerization of resin-based composites: a literature review. Saudi Dent J. 2017;48–58.
5.
Oztur B, Cobanoglu N, Cetin A, Gunduz B. Conversion degrees of resin composite using different light sources. Eur J Dent. 2013;102–9.
6.
Alkhudhairy F, Alkheraif A, Naseem M, Khan R, Vohra F. Degree of conversion and depth of cure of Ivocerin containing photo-polymerized resin luting cement in comparison to conventional luting agents. Pak J Med Sci. 2018;253–9.
7.
Soares C, Rodrigues M, Oliveira L, Braga S, Barcelos L, Silva G, et al. An evaluation of the light output from 22 contemporary light curing units. Braz Dent J. 2017;362–71.
8.
Mahant R, Chokshi S, Vaidya R, Patel P, Vora A, Mahant P. Comparison of the amount of temperature rise in the pulp chamber of teeth treated with QTH, second and third generation LED light curing units: an in vitro study. J Lasers Med Sci. 2016;184–91.
9.
Price R, Ferracane J, Shortall A. Light-curing units: a review of what we need to know. J Dent Res. 2015;1179–86.
10.
Singh T, Ataide I, Fernandes M, Lambor R. Light curing devices-a clinical review. J Orofac Res. 2011;5–19.
11.
Sartori N, Knezevic A, Peruchi L, Phark J, Duarte S. Effects of light attenuation through dental tissues on cure depth of composite resins. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2019;95–105.
12.
Omidi B, Gosili A, Jaber-Ansari M, Mahdkhah A. Intensity output and effectiveness of light curing units in dental offices. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;555–60.
13.
Lopes G, Vieira L, Araujo E. Direct composite resin restorations: a review of some clinical procedures to achive predictable results in posterior teeth. J Esteth Restor Dent. 2004;19–31.
14.
Price R. Light curing in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2017;751–78.
15.
Matosevic D, Panduric V, Jankovic B, Knezevic A, Klaric E, Tarle Z. Light intensity of curing units in dental offices in Zagreb. Croatia Acta Stomatol Croat. 2011;31–40.
16.
Madhusudhana K, Swathi T, Suneelkumar C, Lavanya A. A clinical survey of the output intensity of light curing units in dental offices across Nellore urban area. J Res Dent Sci. 2016;64–8.
17.
Ajaj R, Nassar H, Hasanain F. Infection control barrier and curing time as factors affecting the irradiance of light-cure units. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2018;523–8.
18.
Alquira T, Gady A, Mclindent M, Ali K, S. Types of polymerization units and their intensity output in private dental clinics of twin cities in eastern province, KSA-a pilot study. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2018;47–51.
19.
Alshaafi M, Harlow J, Price H, Rueggeberg F, Labrie D, Alqahtani M, et al. Emission characteristics and effect of battery drain in "budget "curing lights. Oper Dent. 2016;397–408.
20.
Javaheri M, Ashreghi M. Evaluation of curing light intensity in private dental offices. J Qazvin Univ Med Sci. 2009;50–5.
21.
Ernst C, Busemann I, Kern T, Willershausen B. Feldtest zur lichtemissionsleistung von polymerisationsgeräten in zahnärztlichen praxen. Deutsche Zahnärztliche Zeitschrift. 2006;466–71.
22.
Shaafi A, Maawadh M, A, Qahtani A, M. Evaluation of light intensity output of QTH and LED curing devices in various governmental health institutions. Oper Dent. 2011;356–61.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
