| Literature DB >> 26762231 |
Susana Morimoto1, Renata Aló Maluza Zanini1, Josete Barbosa Cruz Meira2, Carlos Martins Agra1, Fernanda Calabró Calheiros1, Denis Yudi Nagase3.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the physical assessment of different light-curing units from 55 dental offices on the irradiance and composite microhardness top/bottom ratio, and the influence of the radiometers for LED or QTH light sources on irradiance measurement. The irradiance of each light-curing unit was evaluated with two radiometers, either for LED or QTH light. A questionnaire regarding the type of source (LED or QTH), time of use, date of last maintenance and light-curing performance assessment applied. The physical assessments were evaluated regarding damage or debris on the light tip. For each light-curing unit, three composite specimens were made (diameter = 7 mm; thickness = 2 mm) with polymerizing time of 20 s, in order to perform the microhardness (Knoop) test. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test (α = 0.01). There was wide variation in irradiance (0-1000 mW/cm(2)). Approximately 50 % of the light-curing units presented radiation lower than 300 mW/cm(2); 10 % of light-curing units, especially those with LED source, presented values higher than 800 mW/cm(2), and 43 % of light-curing units worked with adequate irradiance between 301 and 800 mW/cm(2). In almost 60 % of cases, no maintenance of light-curing units was performed in a period of 3 to 10 years. The age of the light-curing units and the use of inadequate tips interfered negatively in irradiance. The data emphasize the importance of periodic maintenance of light-polymerizing, light-curing units.Entities:
Keywords: Dental offices; Hardness; Irradiance; Light output; Light-curing units; Radiometers
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26762231 DOI: 10.1007/s10266-015-0229-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Odontology ISSN: 1618-1247 Impact factor: 2.634