Effect of various infection-control methods for light-cure units on the cure of composite resins.

This study (1) compared the curing-light intensity with various barrier infection-control methods used to prevent cross contamination, (2) compared the Knoop hardness value of cured composite resin when various barrier control methods were used, and (3) correlated the hardness of the composite resin with the light-intensity output when different infection-control methods were used. The light-cure unit tips were covered with barriers, such as cellophane wrap, plastic gloves, Steri-shields, and finger cots. The control group had no barrier. Composite resins were then cured for each of the five groups, and their Knoop hardness values recorded. The results showed that there was significant statistical difference in the light-intensity output among the five groups. However, there was no significant statistical difference in the Knoop hardness values among any of the groups. There was also no correlation between the Knoop hardness value of the composite resin with the light-intensity output and the different infection-control methods. Therefore, any of the five infection-control methods could be used as barriers for preventing cross-contamination of the light-cure unit tip, for the light-intensity output for all five groups exceeded the recommended value of 300 W/m2. However, to allow a greater margin of error in clinical situations, the authors recommend that the plastic glove or the cellophane wrap be used to wrap the light-cure tip, since these barriers allowed the highest light-intensity output.