317 Average Irradiance of Two-LED-LCUs Compared to a Halogen LCU

Thursday, March 20, 2014: 2 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.
Location: Exhibit Hall AB (Charlotte Convention Center)
Presentation Type: Poster Session
Track: Educator Track
L. SALINA1, R.H. MARCHIORI1, M.I. DE CASTRO DE SOUZA1, C. FELIX2, and C.E. SABROSA1, 1University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2BlueLight analytics inc, Halifax, NS, Canada
Introduction: The checkMARC™ device (BlueLight Analytics Inc., Halifax, NS, Canada) is a NIST referenced calibrated device that measures the total power exiting from the light tip of a light curing unit (LCU) and the software used with this device performs an absolute irradiance (mW/cm2/nm) calculation and an average light tip irradiance (mW/cm2) based on the user entering the light tip diameter. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the average irradiance output of 2 commercially available light-emitting diode (LED) LCUs with 13 quartz-tungsten-halogen (QTH) LCUs attached to dental chair units at the University of the State of Rio de Janeiro Dental School. Methods: Two LED LCUs LCU1(Elipar S10; 3MESPE, Seefeld, Germany) and LCU2(Elipar Freelight2; 3MESPE) and thirteen halogen lights (QHT1-13) attached to dental chairs (Dabi Atlante, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil) were tested with the checkMARC™ device. Results were analyzed with ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD test (α=0.05). Results: Means and standard deviations of average irradiance output (mW/cm2) were LCU1(1204.08±81.33); LCU2(1016.60±81.33); QHT1(190.07±15.21); QHT2(220.89±17.67); QHT3(186.68±14.93); QHT4(185.68±14.85); QHT5(149.90±11.99); QHT6(165.70±13.26); QHT7(124.36±9.95); QHT8(149.68±11.97); QHT9(127.63±10.21); QHT10(108.86±8.71); QHT11(104.39±8.35); QHT12(61.40±4.91) and QHT13(74.56±5.96). There was a statistical significant difference between all LCUs. Elipar S10 exhibited the highest and QHT12 the lowest average irradiance output. There was a large variety of irradiance throughout all QHT LCUs. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that 1) LED LCUs have a statistically significant higher irradiance output than QHT LCUs; 2) there is a large variation of irradiance outputs through different LCUs; 3) LCUs should be tested consistently and frequently for irradiance output to ensure proper curing of light-cured dental materials and 4) energy requirements of any resin-based composite should be checked to ensured proper use of LCUs.
Student Presenter

Keywords: Curing lights, Polymerization and Prosthodontics
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 10/10/2013 by L. SALINA