Accuracy of irradiance and power of light-curing units measured with handheld or laboratory grade radiometers

Abstract This study measured and compared exitance irradiance and power of 4 commercial dental light-curing units (LCU) (Elipar S10, Elipar DeepCure-S, Corded VALO and Bluephase Style) using different types of radiometers. The devices used to analyze the LCU were classified as either handheld analog (Henry Schein, Spring, Demetron 100A, Demetron 100B and Demetron 200), handheld digital (Bluephase 1, Bluephase II, Coltolux, CureRite and Hilux), or laboratory instruments (Thermopile and Integrating Sphere). The laboratory instruments and the Bluephase II radiometer were also used to measure the LCU's power (mW). The LCU's were activated for 20 s (n=5). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test (a=0.05). Among the LCU, the laboratory instruments presented different irradiance values, except for Corded VALO. The Coltolux and Hilux radiometers measured greater irradiance values compared to the laboratory instruments for the four LCUs tested. Within a given LCU, handheld analog units measured lower irradiance values, compared to handheld digital and laboratory instruments, except using the Spring radiometer for the Elipar S10 LCU. None of the handheld radiometers were able to measure similar irradiance values compared to laboratory instruments, except for Elipar S10 when comparing Bluephase 1 and Thermopile. Regarding power measurement, Bluephase II always presented the lowest values compared to the laboratory instruments. These findings suggest that the handheld radiometers utilized by practitioners (analog or digital) exhibit a wide range of irradiance values and may show lower outcomes compared to laboratory based instruments.

Resumo Esse estudo mensurou e comparou a irradiância e a energia de quatro fotopolimerizadores comerciais (Elipar S10, Elipar DeepCure-S, Corded VALO e Bluephase Style) utilizando diferentes tipos de radiômetros. Os dispositivos utilizados para analisar os fotopolimerizadores foram classificados em portáteis analógicos (Henry Schein, Spring, Demetron 100A, Demetron 100B e Demetron 200), portáteis digitais (Bluephase 1, Bluephase II, Coltolux, CureRite e Hilux), ou instrumentos laboratoriais (Thermopile e Integrating Sphere). Os instrumentos laboratoriais e o radiômetro Bluephase II também foram utilizados para medir a energia dos fotopolimerizadores (mW). Os fotopolimerizadores foram ativados por 20 s (n=5). Os dados foram analisados utilizando Kruskal-Wallis e teste de Student-Newman-Keuls (a=0,05). Dentre os fotopolimerizadores, os instrumentos laboratoriais apresentaram diferentes valores de irradiância, exceto para o Corded VALO. O Coltolux e o Hilux mensuraram uma irradiância maior comparado aos instrumentos de laboratório para os quatro fotopolimerizadores testados. Para o mesmo fotopolimerizador, os radiômetros analógicos portáteis mensuraram menores valores de irradiância quando comparados aos digitais portáteis ou aos instrumentos laboratoriais, exceto quando utilizado o Spring para o Elipar S10. Nenhuma diferença foi observada entre os instrumentos laboratoriais na irradiância do Corded VALO. Para a medição da energia, nenhuma diferença foi observada usando Thermopile e a Integrating Sphere para o Corded VALO. Para os outros fotopolimerizadores, cada instrumento indicou uma energia diferente. Esses achados sugerem que radiômetros portáteis utilizados pelos cirurgiões-dentistas (analógico ou digital) exibem uma ampla gama de valores de irradiância e podem mostrar medidas inferiores comparados aos instrumentos de laboratório.

Multiple-peak and single-peak dental curing lights comparison on the wear resistance of bulk-fill composites

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.