G. MEYER, C.-P. ERNST, and B. WILLERSHAUSEN, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Germany
Blue LED curing
lights seem to have several advantages over conventional QTH curing devices.
Recently, suspicions have arisen that blue LED curing light might scatter more
widely than conventional QTH light. This is of high clinical relevance because
often there is a distinct distance from the light guide tip to the exposed
resin composite of up to 10 mm. Objective: Aim of this study was to determine
the percentage of power output of LED and QTH curing devices, available for
curing at different distances in comparison to power output available at a
zero-distance from the light guide. Method: Three LED curing devices (Elipar
FreeLight/3M ESPE, Luxomax/Akeda, e-lite/GC) were compared to two QTH curing
devices (Elipar TriLight/3M ESPE, Optilux 501 - conventional and Turbo light guide/Kerr-Demetron). Power density
was measured with a Fieldmaster GS/Coherent unit (Sensor LM-3 HTD), with
increasing distance from the light guide (0 - 20 mm, 1 mm increment, n=6).
Statistical analysis was carried out with the Wilcoxon- and Kruskal Wallis
Test. Results: The mean decrease in power density available for curing in a
distance of 10 mm from the light guide tip was 68 % for the FreeLight, 83 % for
the e-lite, 42 % for the Luxomax, 38 % for the TriLight, 33 % for the Optilux
with the standard light guide and 44 %
for the Optilux with Turbo light guide. The power density of the Luxomax was
only 40 % from that of the other LED curing devices at 0 mm distance. Conclusion:
The blue LED curing devices Elipar FreeLight and GC e-lite showed a significant
higher percentage decrease in power output within a distance of 10 mm than the
QTH curing devices.
|