4.3 Article

Light output from six battery operated dental curing lights

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.07.033

关键词

Dental curing lights; Dental equipment; Beam profile; Emission spectrum analysis; Radiometry

资金

  1. Universidade de Sao Paulo [01/2016]
  2. Santander bank [01/2016]
  3. Dalhousie Faculty of Dentistry Research Fund [36549]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Light Curing Units (LCUs) are used daily in almost every dental office to photocure resins, but because the light is so bright, the user is unable to tell visually if there are any differences between different LCUs. This study evaluated the light output from six dental LCUs: Elipar Deep Cure-S (3M ESPE), Bluephase G2 (Ivoclar Vivadent), Translux 2Wave (Heraeus Kulzer), Optilight Prime (Gnatus), Slim Blast (First Medica) and Led.B (Guilin Woodpecker) with a fully charged battery, after 50, and again after 100, 20 second light exposures. For each situation, the radiant power was measured 10 times with a laboratory-grade power meter. Then, the emission spectrum was measured using a fiber-optic spectrometer followed by an analysis of the light beam profile. It was found there were significant differences in the LCU power and the irradiance values between the LCUs (p < 0.01). The Optilight Prime and Slim Blast LCUs showed a significant reduction in light output after a 50 and 100 exposures, while Bluephase G2 exhibited a significant reduction only after 100 exposures (p < 0.01). The Bluephase G2 and Translux 2 Wave delivered an emission spectrum that had two distinct wavelength emission peaks. Only the Elipar Deep Cure-S and Bluephase G2 LCUs displayed homogeneous light beam profiles, the other LCUs exhibited highly non-homogeneous light beam profiles. It was concluded that contemporary LCUs could have very different light output characteristics. Both manufacturers and researchers should provide more information about the light output from LCUs. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据