314 Energy Delivery Based on Restoration Location and Light Curing Unit

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, 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
Objective: The clinical setting poses many challenges when using a light-curing unit (LCU). The location of the restoration, LCU size and shape, and size of the patient’s mouth can all affect how much energy is delivered to a restoration. This study examined the difference in the amount of energy delivered by three LCUs to two simulated restorations, and the effect of restoration location on energy delivery.

Methods: Using a MARC-Patient Simulator® (BlueLight Analytics, Halifax, NS, CA) 30 dental students exposed the 1mm deep simulated anterior restoration and a 4mm deep simulated posterior restoration twice using an Optilux 401® (Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA), VALO® (Ultradent Products, South Jordan, UT), and Bluephase G2® (Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY). The students stabilized the LCUs perpendicular to, and 1mm from each restoration for the first second of light exposure, then moved the LCU tip directly over the restoration for the remainder of the cure. Twenty-second cure times were used for all three lights for both restoration locations. The MARC software reported the irradiance (mW/cm2) in real-time and determined the energy delivered to the restorations.

Results: A mixed model test determined that the amount of energy delivered to the anterior restoration was significantly greater than to the posterior restoration (p=0.0009). The same analysis determined no significant difference between energy delivered by the Bluephase G2 and VALO LCUs, although both delivered significantly more energy to the restorations than the Optilux 401 (p<0.0001).

Table 1: Energy delivered by the three LCUs.


Mean energy delivered


25.7 J/cm2

Bluephase G2

25.5 J/cm2

Optilux 401

17.6 J/cm2

Conclusion:  There was no significant difference between energy delivered by the Bluephase G2 and VALO LCUs. The LCUs delivered significantly different amounts of energy to anterior and posterior simulated restorations. Dental professionals should be aware of these discrepancies to avoid failure due to under-cured restorations.

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: Access, Curing lights, Effectiveness and Energy
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 S. SAMAHA