The effect of disinfectants and line cleaners on the release of mercury from amalgam.

BACKGROUND: Dental practices use disinfectants or line cleaners to flush dental unit wastewater lines to minimize odor generation, remove solid waste particles and remove biofilms in dental unit water lines (DUWLs). METHODS: The authors evaluated 47 disinfectants or line cleaners for their potential to release mercury from amalgam waste. They prepared each product concentration according to the manufacturer's recommendations and gently agitated it along with one amalgam specimen for 24 hours. They filtered the combined decanted liquid and rinse and analyzed it for mercury using modified U.S. Environmental Protection Agency method 245.1. RESULTS: Six preparations released significantly more mercury from amalgam (about 17 to 340 times) than did the deionized water control (P < .001). The amount of mercury released by the other disinfectants/line cleaners was not statistically different from that released by the control. The pH values of all preparations ranged from 1.76 to 12.35. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This study and other published reports have demonstrated that preparations containing chlorine release more mercury from amalgam than did some other products and the deionized water control. As a result, the use of these products is not recommended for treating dental office wastewater lines or DUWLs.

Evaluating amalgam separators using an international standard.

BACKGROUND: Most amalgam particles generated during placement and removal of amalgam restorations are captured by chair-side traps and suction system traps and filters. Particles not captured can end up in the wastewater discharged from the dental office. Environmental initiatives to reduce the discharge of mercury-containing products such as dental amalgam waste into the environment have sparked interest in the use of amalgam separators. METHODS: The authors used International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 11,143 for Amalgam Separators in a laboratory test to evaluate the amalgam removal efficiency of 13 commercially available amalgam separators and two commercially available filtration devices not marketed as amalgam separators but that have the potential to be used as such. RESULTS: All 13 amalgam separators and the two filtration devices exceeded the ISO Standard 11,143 requirement of 95 percent amalgam removal efficiency. The authors found statistical differences in the efficiency of the separators and filtration devices. No differences were found between the "empty" and "full" conditions for each separator. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This laboratory evaluation shows that amalgam separators and the filtration devices removed at least 97.05 percent of the amalgam in samples with particle-size distribution as specified in ISO Standard 11,143.

Light-emitting diode curing light irradiance and polymerization of resin-based composite.

BACKGROUND: Light-emitting diode (LED) curing lights are becoming popular; however, questions about their efficiency remain. The authors performed a comprehensive analysis of the properties of resin-based composites cured with LED lights. METHODS: The authors evaluated seven LED lights and one quartz-tungsten-halogen light (control). They measured intensity, depth of cure (DOC), degree of conversion (DC), hardness and temperature rise. They used three shades of a hybrid resin-based composite and a microfill composite, as well as one shade of another hybrid composite. RESULTS: Two LED lights required additional cure time to reach a DOC similar to that of the control light. DC at the top of the samples was independent of the light used. At 2.0 millimeters, the DC for several LED lights was significantly lower than that for the control light and was correlated strongly to the light's intensity. The bottom-to-top ratio for hardness of resin-based composites cured by all but one light was greater than 0.80. All LED lights except one had smaller temperature rise than did the control light. CONCLUSIONS: Six of the seven LED curing lights performed similarly to a quartz-tungsten-halogen curing light in curing resin-based composites. Clinical Implications. While LED curing lights and a quartz-tungsten-halogen light could cure resin-based composites, some resin-based composites cured with LED lights may require additional curing time or smaller increments of thickness.

Variation of depth of cure and intensity with distance using LED curing lights.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to determine the correlation between intensity of light-emitting diode (LED) and tungsten-halogen light sources, and depth of cure of a resin composite at different distances. METHODS: Four LED curing lights (Flashlite 1001, Freelight 2, Smartlite IQ and Ultralume 5) and one tungsten halogen (Optilux 501, with 8 and 11 mm tips) were evaluated. Intensity was measured according a modified ISO Standard 10650 at distances of 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 mm between the light tip and detector. Depth of cure (DOC) of TPH Spectrum shade A2 was measured according to the international standard ISO 4049 at the same distances. RESULTS: For all lights, intensity decreased as distance increased. The authors documented a logarithmic correlation between intensity and distance for all lights except the Smartlite IQ, Ultralume 5 and the Optilux 501 with the 11 mm tip, which showed a linear relationship between intensity and distance. All lights demonstrated a logarithmic correlation between intensity and DOC, and a linear correlation between DOC and distance. Smartlite IQ and Optilux 501 (11 mm tip) also had the least reduction in intensity and DOC at 10 mm. SIGNIFICANCE: Clinicians often an experience difficulty placing the light tip close to the resin surface when curing resin composites. While both intensity and DOC decrease with increasing distance, the relationship between these factors and distance may not be similar for all lights and may depend on the characteristics of individual lights.