Justin D Ward1, Bethany J Wolf2, Luis P Leite3, Jing Zhou4. 1. a Private practice, Burley, Idaho. 2. b Assistant Professor, Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, S.C. 3. c Professor and Chairman, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, S.C. 4. d Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, S.C.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical performance of brackets cured with a high-intensity, light-emitting diode (LED) with a shorter curing time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients and a total of 680 brackets were examined using a randomized split-mouth design. The maxillary right and mandibular left quadrants were cured for 6 seconds with a high-intensity LED light (3200 mW/cm(2)) and the maxillary left and mandibular right quadrants were cured for 20 seconds with a standard-intensity LED light (1200 mW/cm(2)). Alternating patients had the quadrants inverted for the curing protocol. The number and date of each first-time bracket failure was recorded from 199 to 585 days posttreatment. RESULTS: The bracket failure rate was 1.18% for both curing methods. The proportion of bracket failure was not significantly different between curing methods (P = 1.000), genders (P = 1.000), jaws (P = .725), sides (P = .725), or quadrants (P = .547). Posterior teeth exhibited a greater proportion of failures (2.21%) relative to anterior teeth (0.49%), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = .065). CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in bond failure rates between the two curing methods. Both methods showed bond failure rates low enough to be considered clinically sufficient. The high-intensity LED light used with a shorter curing time may be considered an advantage due to the reduced chair time.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical performance of brackets cured with a high-intensity, light-emitting diode (LED) with a shorter curing time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients and a total of 680 brackets were examined using a randomized split-mouth design. The maxillary right and mandibular left quadrants were cured for 6 seconds with a high-intensity LED light (3200 mW/cm(2)) and the maxillary left and mandibular right quadrants were cured for 20 seconds with a standard-intensity LED light (1200 mW/cm(2)). Alternating patients had the quadrants inverted for the curing protocol. The number and date of each first-time bracket failure was recorded from 199 to 585 days posttreatment. RESULTS: The bracket failure rate was 1.18% for both curing methods. The proportion of bracket failure was not significantly different between curing methods (P = 1.000), genders (P = 1.000), jaws (P = .725), sides (P = .725), or quadrants (P = .547). Posterior teeth exhibited a greater proportion of failures (2.21%) relative to anterior teeth (0.49%), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = .065). CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in bond failure rates between the two curing methods. Both methods showed bond failure rates low enough to be considered clinically sufficient. The high-intensity LED light used with a shorter curing time may be considered an advantage due to the reduced chair time.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bracket failure rate; Curing times; LED lights