350 Effect of Instruction on Energy Delivered to Simulated Restorations

Thursday, March 20, 2014: 2 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.
Location: Exhibit Hall AB (Charlotte Convention Center)
Presentation Type: Poster Session
S. SAMAHA1, S. BHATT1, C. BENINATI1, R.D. PERRY1, R.B. PRICE2, and H. STRASSLER3, 1Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, 2Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada, 3University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD
Objectives: Delivering an adequate amount of energy to resin-based restorations is of critical importance. This study used a patient simulator to determine if dental students delivered more energy to simulated restorations after they received instructions using the simulator on how to improve their light curing technique.

Methods: 30 dental students light cured two simulated restorations (1-mm deep anterior and 4-mm deep posterior) using three light-curing units (LCUs): VALO® (Ultradent Products, South Jordan, UT), Bluephase G2® (Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY), and Optilux 401® (Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA). A MARC Patient Simulator® (Bluelight Analytics, Halifax, NS, CA) measured the irradiance (mW/cm2) received by the restorations in real-time to calculate the energy (J/cm2) delivered during a 20-second cure. At first, students were asked to use their own light curing technique. They were then given five minutes of combined verbal instructions and a demonstration on proper curing technique using the MARC-PS, and asked to cure the restorations again. Based on a literature review, 16J/cm2 was considered the minimum amount of energy an average resin-based restoration should receive to be considered adequately cured.

Results: Paired t-tests were used to determine significance in the amount of energy delivered before versus after instruction (Table 1). A McNemar test compared energy delivery before and after instruction in relation to the 16J/cm2 minimum requirement. Eighteen students improved from delivering below 16J/cm2 before instruction to delivering above 16J/cm2 after instruction when using the Optilux 401 (p<0.001). 27 students delivered above 16J/cm2 both before and after instruction when using both the VALO and Bluephase G2 LCU’s; the remaining three students all delivered 16J/cm2 after instruction.

Table 1: Increase in energy delivered after instruction

LCU

Increase in energy delivered

p-value

VALO

5.9 J/cm2

<0.001

Bluephase G2

3.5 J/cm2

<0.001

Optilux 401

5.0 J/cm2

<0.001

Conclusion: Using a patient simulator to teach proper curing technique markedly and significantly improved the amount of energy delivered by dental students using three different LCU’s.

Student Presenter This abstract is based on research that was funded entirely or partially by an outside source: Sponsored in part by Ivoclar Vivodent (Amherst, NY)

Keywords: Curing lights, Effectiveness and Instruction
Presenting author's disclosure statement:

I have a significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with an organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session. I understand that I must disclose this information to the participants who attend my presentation. No
I have read the IADR policy on licensing.
Signed on 10/02/2013 by C. BENINATI

Previous Abstract | Next Abstract >>