Curing efficiency of high-intensity light-emitting diode (LED) devices.

Abstract

We evaluated the curing efficiency of 4 high-intensity light-emitting diode (LED) devices by assessing percentage of residual C=C (%RDB), surface microhardness (SM), depth of cure (DC), percentage of linear shrinkage-strain (%LS), and percentage of wall-to-wall contraction (%WWC). The light-curing units tested were a QTH light, the Elipar TriLight (3M/ESPE), and 4 LED devices - the Allegro (Denmat), the Bluephase (Ivoclar/Vivadent), the FreeLight2 (3M/ESPE), and The Cure TC-01 (Spring Health Products). The %RDB was measured by microFTIR spectroscopy. Microhardness measurements (Vickers) were performed at the surface (H0) and at depths of 3 mm (H3) and 5 mm (H5) of cylindrical specimens. Depth of cure was expressed as the ratio of microhardness at each depth, relative to the corresponding surface value (H3/H0 and H5/H0). The bonded disc method was used to evaluate %LS. For the %WWC evaluation, cylindrical resin restorations were imaged by high resolution micro-CT and the %WWC was calculated at depths of 0 mm and 2 mm. There were no statistical differences among the LEDs in %RDB or %LS. The Bluephase and Allegro had the highest SM values. As compared with the other LEDs, the Bluephase and The Cure TC-01 had lower values for depth of cure at depths of 3 mm and 5 mm. There were no significant differences in %WWC among the LEDs at either depth, and the QTH had the lowest %WWC at both depths.

7 Figures and Tables

Cite this paper

@article{Rahiotis2010CuringEO, title={Curing efficiency of high-intensity light-emitting diode (LED) devices.}, author={Christos Rahiotis and Katerina Patsouri and Nick Silikas and Afrodite I Kakaboura}, journal={Journal of oral science}, year={2010}, volume={52 2}, pages={187-95} }