The effectiveness of cure of LED and halogen curing lights at varying cavity depths

This study compared the effectiveness of cure of two LED (light-emitting diodes) lights (Elipar FreeLight [FL], 3M-ESPE and GC e-Light [EL], GC) to conventional (Max [MX] (control), Dentsply-Caulk), high intensity (Elipar TriLight [TL], 3M-ESPE) and very high intensity (Astralis 10 [AS], Ivoclar Vivadent) halogen lights at varying cavity depths. Ten light curing regimens were investigated. They include: FL1-400 mW/cm2 [40 seconds], FL2-0-400 mW/cm2 [12 seconds] --> 400 mW/cm2 [28 seconds], EL1-750 mW/cm2 [10 pulses x 2 seconds], EL2-350 mW/cm2 [40 seconds], EL3-600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds], EL4-0-600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds] --> 600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds], TL1-800 mW/cm2 [40 seconds], TL2-100-800 mW/cm2 [15 seconds] --> 800 mW/cm2 [25 seconds], AS1-1200 mW/cm2 [10 seconds], MX-400 mW/cm2 [40 seconds]. The effectiveness of cure of the different modes was determined by measuring the top and bottom surface hardness (KHN) of 2-mm, 3-mm and 4-mm thick composite (Z100, [3M-ESPE]) specimens using a digital microhardness tester (n = 5, load = 500 g; dwell time = 15 seconds). Results were analyzed using ANOVA/Scheffe's post-hoc test and Independent Samples t-Test (p < 0.05). For all lights, effectiveness of cure was found to decrease with increased cavity depths. The mean hardness ratio for all curing lights at a depth of 2 mm was found to be greater than 0.80 (the accepted minimum standard). At 3 mm, all halogen lights produced a hardness ratio greater than 0.80 but some LED light regimens did not; and at a depth of 4 mm, the mean hardness ratio observed with all curing lights was less than 0.80. Significant differences in top and bottom KHN values were observed among different curing regimens for the same light and between LED and halogen lights. While curing with most modes of EL resulted in significantly lower top and bottom KHN values than the control (MX) at all depths, the standard mode of FL resulted in significantly higher top and bottom KHN at a depth of 3 mm and 4 mm. The depth of composite cure with LED LCUs was, therefore, product and mode dependent.     

The Knoop hardness of a composite resin polymerized with different curing lights and different modes

AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface hardness of a hybrid composite resin polymerized with different curing lights. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two 3.0 mm thick composite resin discs were polymerized in a prepared natural tooth mold using: (1) a conventional quartz-tungsten halogen light (QTH- Spectrum 800); (2) a high-intensity halogen light, Elipar Trilight (TL)-standard/exponential mode; (3) a high-intensity halogen light, Elipar Highlight (HL)-standard/soft-start mode; (4) a light-emitting diode, Elipar Freelight (LED); and (5) a plasma-arc curing light, Virtuoso (PAC). Exposure times were 40 seconds for the halogen and LED lights, and three and five seconds for the PAC light. Following polymerization, the Knoop hardness was measured at the bottom and the top surfaces of the discs. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between top and bottom Knoop Hardness number (KHN) values for all lights. The hardness of the top and bottom surfaces of both specimens cured by the PAC light was significantly lower than the other lights. No significant hardness differences were observed between the remaining curing units at the top of the 2.0 mm specimens. Significant differences were found between the LED and two modes of HL on the bottom surfaces. For the 3.0 mm thick samples, while significant differences were noted between LED and TL standard mode and between the two TL curing modes on the top, significant differences were only observed between QTH and the standard modes of TL and HL at the bottom.     

Polymerization efficiency of LED curing lights

ABSTRACT: Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the curing efficiency of three commercially available light‐emitting diode (LED)‐based curing lights with that of a quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) curing light by means of hardness testing. In addition, the power density (intensity) and spectral emission of each LED light was compared with the QTH curing light in both the 380‐to 520‐nm and the 450‐ to 500‐nm spectral ranges. Materials and Methods: A polytetrafluoroethylene mold 2 mm high and 8 mm in diameter was used to prepare five depth‐of‐cure test specimens for each combination of exposure duration, composite type (Silux Plus [microfill], Z‐100 [hybrid]), and curing light (ZAP Dual Curing? Light, LumaCure?, VersaLux?, Optilux 401?). After 24 hours, Knoop hardness measurements were made for each side of the specimen, means were calculated, and a bottom/top Knoop hardness (B/T KH) percentage was determined. A value of at least 80% was used to indicate satisfactory polymerization. A linear regression of B/T KH percentage versus exposure duration was performed, and the resulting equation was used to predict the exposure duration required to produce a B/T KH percentage of 80% for the test conditions. The power densities (power/unit area) of the LED curing lights and the QTH curing light (Optilux 401?) were measured 1 mm from the target using a laboratory‐grade, laser power meter in both the full visible light spectrum range (380–780 nm) and the spectral range (between 450 and 500 nm), using a combination of long‐ and short‐wave edge filters. Results: The emission spectra of the LED lights more closely mirrored the absorption spectrum of the commonly used photoinitiator camphorquinone. Specifically, 95% of the emission spectrum of the VersaLux, 87% of the LumaCure, 84% of the ZAP LED, and 78% of the ZAP combination LED and QTH fell between 450 and 500 nm. In contrast, only 56% of the emission spectrum of the Optilux 401? halogen lamp fell within this range. However, the power density between 450 and 500 nm was at least four times greater for the halogen lamp than for the purely LED lights. As I a result, the LED‐based curing lights required from 39 to 61 seconds to cure a 2‐mm thick hybrid I resin composite and between 83 and 131 seconds to adequately cure a microfill resin composite. By I comparison, the QTH light required only 21 and 42 seconds to cure the hybrid and microfill resin I composites, respectively.     

三种光固化灯在不同照射距离对复合树脂固化的影响

目的通过检测比较三种具有较高光密度的光固化灯固化树脂试片的表面硬度值,以评价不同的照射距离对树脂固化程度的影响。方法采用3盏光固化灯聚合90个圆柱形光固化复合树脂试片,固化时间均为40s,聚合时固化灯头与试片表面的距离分别为0mm,3mm,6mm,9mm,12mm,15mm。将固化试片浸泡在蒸馏水中,避光37°C保存24h,测量试片表面和底面的努氏硬度(KHN)。对数据进行统计学分析,计算试片底面与表面最大硬度的百分率,检测试片表面在不同的照射距离所获得的光密度值,取对数后与相应的距离进行直线相关分析。结果光密度的对数值与固化距离呈明显负相关。光固化灯与固化距离对试片的硬度有显著影响。Mini LED AutoFocus固化的硬度值比LEDemetronⅠ和Optilux 401更高,LEDemetronⅠ和Optilux 401的硬度比较没有显著意义。随着固化距离的增加样品的努氏硬度显著下降。大多数实验组都能达到有效的硬度百分率。结论光固化灯灯头与树脂表面距离的微小改变会导致光密度发生显著变化。只有采用具有较高光密度的光敏灯才能满足临床较长照射距离的复合树脂充分固化。     

Evaluation of a dual peak third generation LED curing light

This study compared 3 light-emitting diode curing lights (UltraLume 5, FreeLight 2, LEDemetron I) with a quartz-tungsten-halogen light (Optilux 401) to determine which was the better at photopolymerizing 5 resin composites. The composites were 2 mm thick and were irradiated for the manufacturers' recommended curing times at distances of 2 mm and 8 mm from the light guide. The Knoop hardness at each of 22 points over a 10-mm diameter footprint at the top and bottom of the composites was used to compare the lights. The 4 curing lights and irradiation distances did not have the same effect on all the composites (P < .001). It was concluded that overall the UltraLume 5 dual peak third generation LED curing light was able to polymerize these 5 resin composites as well as or better than the other curing lights.     

Effectiveness of composite cure associated with different curing modes of LED lights

This study compared the effectiveness of cure of two LED (light-emitting diodes) lights (Elipar FreeLight [FL], 3M-ESPE; GC e-Light [EL], GC) to conventional (Max [MX], Dentsply-Caulk [control]), high intensity (Elipar TriLight [TL], 3M-ESPE) and very high intensity (Astralis 10 [AS], Ivoclar Vivadent) halogen lights. The 10 light-curing regimens investigated were: FL1 400 mW/cm2 [40 seconds], FL2 0-400 mW/cm2 [12 seconds] --> 400 mW/cm2 [28 seconds], EL1 750 mW/cm2 [10 pulses x 2 seconds], EL2 350 mW/cm2 [40 seconds], EL3 600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds], EL4 0-600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds] --> 600 mW/cm2 [20 seconds], TL1 800 mW/cm2 [40 seconds], TL2 100-800 mW/cm2 [15 seconds] --> 800 mW/cm2 [25 seconds], AS1 1200 mW/cm2 [10 seconds], MX 400 mW/cm2 [40 seconds]. Effectiveness of cure with the different modes was determined by measuring the top and bottom surface hardness (KHN) of 2-mm thick composite (Z100, [3M-ESPE]) specimens using a digital microhardness tester (n=5, load=500 g; dwell time=15 seconds). Results were analyzed using one-way ANOVA/Scheffe's post-hoc test and Independent Samples t-test (p<0.05). At the top surface, the mean KHN observed with LED lights ranged from 55.42 +/- 1.47 to 68.54 +/- 1.46, while that of halogen lights was 62.64 +/- 1.87 to 73.14 +/- 0.97. At the bottom surface, the mean KHN observed with LED and halogen lights ranged from 46.90 +/- 1.73 to 66.46 +/- 1.18 and 62.26 +/- 1.93 to 70.50 +/- 0.87, respectively. Significant differences in top and bottom KHN values were observed between different curing regimens for the same light, and between LED and halogen lights. Although curing with most modes of EL resulted in significantly lower top and bottom KHN values than the control, no significant difference was observed for the different modes of FL. Hence, the effectiveness of composite cure with LED LCUs is product dependent.     

Effect of curing time and light curing systems on the surface hardness of compomers

This study compared the Vickers hardness of the top and bottom surfaces of two compomers (Compoglass F and Dyract AP) polymerized for 20 and 40 seconds with two different light curing systems. Five samples for each group were prepared using Teflon molds (9x2 mm) and were light-cured either with a conventional halogen lamp (Optilux 501) or LED light (LEDemetron I) for 20 or 40 seconds. After curing, all the samples were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37 degrees C. The Vickers hardness measurements were obtained from the top and bottom surfaces of each sample. ANOVA, Scheffé and t-test were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the results. For the top and bottom surfaces, the light curing systems and curing times tested showed no statistical difference, except for Optilux 501, which used 20 seconds for both compomers (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in the microhardness of both surfaces of Compoglass F and Dyract AP cured for either 20 or 40 seconds using LEDemetron I. With Optilux 501, the microhardness of samples cured for 40 seconds was significantly higher than 20 seconds (p<0.05).     

Curing of pit & fissure sealants using Light Emitting Diode curing units

Light Emitting Diode (LED) curing units are attractive to clinicians, because most are cordless and should create less heat within tooth structure. However, questions about polymerization efficacy have surrounded this technology. This research evaluated the adequacy of the depth of cure of pit & fissure sealants provided by LED curing units. Optilux (OP) and Elipar Highlight (HL) high intensity halogen and Astralis 5 (A5) conventional halogen lights were used for comparison. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) curing units were Allegro (AL), LE Demetron I (DM), FreeLight (FL), UltraLume 2(UL), UltraLume 5 (UL5) and VersaLux (VX). Sealants used in the study were UltraSeal XT plus Clear (Uclr), Opaque (Uopq) and Teethmate F-1 Natural (Kclr) and Opaque (Kopq). Specimens were fabricated in a brass mold (2 mm thick x 6 mm diameter) and placed between two glass slides (n=5). Each specimen was cured from the top surface only. One hour after curing, four Knoop Hardness readings were made for each top and bottom surface at least 1 mm from the edge. The bottom to top (B/T) KHN ratio was calculated. Groups were fabricated with 20 and 40-second exposure times. In addition, a group using a 1 mm-thick mold was fabricated using an exposure time of 20 seconds. Differences between lights for each material at each testing condition were determined using one-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls Post-hoc test (alpha=0.05). There was no statistical difference between light curing units for Uclr cured in a 1-mm thickness for 20 seconds or cured in a 2 mm-thickness for 40 seconds. All other materials and conditions showed differences between light curing units. Both opaque materials showed significant variations in B/T KHN ratios dependent upon the light-curing unit.     

Microhardness of a Resin Cement Polymerized by Light-Emitting Diode and Halogen Lights through Ceramic

Purpose: This study evaluated the curing efficiency of light-emitting diode (LED) and halogen [quartz tungsten halogens (QTH)] lights through ceramic by determining the surface microhardness of a highly filled resin cement.
Materials and Methods: Resin cement specimens (Variolink Ultra; with and without catalyst) (5-mm diameter, 1-mm thick) were condensed in a Teflon mold. They were irradiated through a ceramic disc (IPS Empress 2, diameter 5 mm, thickness 2 mm) by high-power light-curing units as follows: (1) QTH for 40 seconds (continuous), (2) LED for 20 seconds, and (3) LED for 40 seconds (5-second ramp mode). The specimens in control groups were cured under a Mylar strip. Vickers microhardness was measured on the top and bottom surfaces by a microhardness tester. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a post hoc Bonferroni test at a significance level of p < 0.05.
Results: The mean microhardness values of the top and bottom surfaces for the dual-cured cement polymerized beneath the ceramic by QTH or LED (40 seconds) were significantly higher than that of light-cured cement ( p < 0.05). The top and bottom surface microhardness of dual-cured cement polymerized beneath the ceramic did not show a statistically significant difference between the LED and QTH for 40 seconds ( p > 0.05).
Conclusions: The efficiency of high-power LED light in polymerization of the resin cement used in this study was comparable to the high-power QTH light only with a longer exposure time. A reduced curing time of 20 seconds with high-power LED light for photopolymerizing the dual-cured resin cement under ceramic restorations with a minimum 2-mm thickness is not recommended.     

Effects of curing lights on human gingival epithelial cell proliferation

BackgroundLight-emitting diode (LED) and quartz-tungsten-halogen (QTH) curing lights are used commonly in clinics. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of these lights on the proliferation of human gingival epithelial cells.MethodsSmulow-Glickman (S-G) cells were exposed to a VALO LED (Ultradent) or an XL3000 QTH (3M ESPE) light at 1 millimeter or 6 mm distance for 18, 39, 60, and 120 seconds. Untreated and Triton X-100 treated cells were used as controls. At 24, 48, and 72 hours after light exposure, cell proliferation was evaluated via a 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay.ResultsThe authors first evaluated the performances of these 2 lights. Both LED and QTH lights generated heat. The LED light generated less heat than the QTH light and could save approximately two-thirds of the curing time. When used for 18 seconds at a 6 mm distance, the LED light did not inhibit the proliferation of S-G cells. However, if the exposure time was longer (for example, 39, 60, or 120 seconds), the LED light inhibited cell proliferation. The inhibitory effect increased when the exposure time was increased to 39, 60, or 120 seconds. The QTH light did not inhibit S-G cell proliferation if the exposure time was less than 120 seconds.ConclusionsProlonged exposure to a blue curing light (both LED and QTH) inhibits the proliferation of gingival epithelial cells and may cause damages to oral soft tissues.Practical ImplicationsIn dental practices, a balance should be struck in consideration of curing time not only to cure the composites completely but also to minimize unnecessarily prolonged light exposure.     

Curing efficiency of three different curing modes at different distances for four composites

This study investigated the influence of the different curing distances with three polymerization modes in terms of the surface microhardness of four resin composites as a function of energy density. A hybrid resin composite and flowable composite from each of two manufacturers were evaluated. The specimens were polymerized with one of two light-curing units: 1) Mini LED AutoFocus (1500 mW/cm2) with a fast curing mode, for which two polymerization regimens were used: a) one AutoFocus function cycle and b) two AutoFocus function cycles, and 2) LEDemetron I (950 mW/cm2) with a 20-second curing time. Polymerization was performed with the curing tip at a distance of 0 mm, 3.0 mm, 6.0 mm, and 9.0 mm from the top surface of the specimen, and the power density of each light source was measured with a spectrophotometer. All specimens were stored in distilled water in a light-proof container at 37°C for 24 hours, and their top and bottom surface Knoop hardness numbers were determined. Microhardness data were submitted to two-way analysis of variance and multiple comparisons with a Tukey test. All statistical analyses were performed at a significance level of 0.05. Though the curing lights tested exhibited a decrease in power density with distance, the rate and extent of power density loss were not the same. The polymerization mode and curing tip distance had a significant effect on the composite microhardness. There was also a significant interaction among polymerization mode, curing tip distance, and microhardness. The curing ability of the three polymerization modes was ranked in terms of the hardness percent values: the LEDemetron I > two cycles of the Mini LED AutoFocus > one cycle of the Mini LED AutoFocus.     

Polymerization depths of contemporary light-curing units using microhardness

PURPOSE: This research investigated composite depths of cure using a variety of light-curing units and exposure protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Composite (Herculite XRV, shade A2, Kerr, Orange, California) was exposed in opaque compules to conventional quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) units, soft-start units, high-intensity QTH and plasma arc (PAC) curing lights, and one argon laser. Cured compules were sonicated to remove uncured composite and were sectioned and polished along the long axis to expose cured composite. Knoop hardness was measured 0.5 mm from the irradiated, top surface and then at 1.0 mm and in 1.0-mm increments until reliable readings could no longer be obtained. Hardness values were compared by analysis of variance at similar depths within a specific curing-light classification, using the hardness of the standard 40-second conventional QTH exposure as comparison (Dunnett's t-test). Depth of cure was defined as the deepest hardness value found equivalent to that at 0.5-mm depth for a specific curing light and scenario. RESULTS: Conventional QTH lights provided similar hardness profiles. At 2-mm depth, use of a different unit or curing tip made no difference in hardness compared with the standard. At this depth, soft-start (pulse-delay and step-cure) methods yielded hardness similar to that of the standard. High-intensity QTH lights provided similar hardness at 2-mm depth in 10 seconds to that of the standard 40-second exposure. Plasma arc exposure for less than 10 seconds produced inferior hardness compared with the standard. A 10-second PAC and a 5-second laser exposure gave hardness at 2-mm depth equivalent to that of the 40-second standard. Depth of cure for almost all curing scenarios was not greater than 2 mm. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Similar-type conventional QTH lights with different tip diameter (8 and 12 mm) provide similar composite cure characteristics. Soft-start techniques provide similar cure profiles to those achieved with conventional QTH technique when used according to manufacturer's recommendations. High-intensity QTH units and the argon laser can reduce exposure time while providing composite with similar hardness to that of conventional QTH curing. Plasma arc exposure should be at least of 10 seconds duration to provide hardness equivalent to that achieved with conventional 40-second QTH exposure. Even with consideration of high-intensity curing units, composite increments should still be no greater than 2 mm to provide homogeneous hardness.     

Composite cure and pulp-cell cytotoxicity associated with LED curing lights

This study compared the cure and pulp-cell cytotoxicity of composites polymerized with light-emitting diode (LED) and halogen-based light curing units. A mini-filled resin composite (Tetric Ceram, Vivadent), two LED (E-light [EL], GC and Freelight [FL], 3M-ESPE), a conventional halogen (Max [MX], Dentsply) and a high-intensity halogen light (Astralis 10 [AS], Vivadent) were evaluated. Cure associated with the different lights was determined by measuring the top and bottom surface hardness (KHN; n = 5) of 2-mm thick specimens using a digital microhardness tester (load = 500 gf; dwell time = 15 seconds). Pulp-cell cytotoxicity was assessed using a direct contact method involving incisor tooth slices dissected from 28-day old Wistar rats maintained in Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's Medium (DMEM) and 1% agarose. The bottom surfaces of the cured composite specimens (7-mm diameter and 2-mm deep) were placed in contact with the openings of each tooth slice. After incubation in 5% CO2 atmosphere at 37 degrees C for 48 hours, the tooth slices were fixed, demineralized and processed for histological examination. Pulp fibroblasts and odontoblasts were counted histomorphometrically at 400x magnification within a 1500 microm2 area using a computerized micro-imaging system. Eighteen readings were obtained for each curing light. Data was subjected to ANOVA/Scheffe's test and Pearson's correlation at significance level 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. At the top surfaces, the cure with AS was significantly greater than the other curing lights, with MX and FL being significantly greater than EL. At the bottom surfaces, MX, AS and FL had significantly better cure than EL. Specimens cured with MX were less cytotoxic than those polymerized with other curing lights. Specimens cured with AS and EL were significantly less cytotoxic than FL. Composite cure and cytotoxicity associated with LED lights is device dependent. Composite cure was not correlated to pulp-cell cytotoxicity. The response of pulpal fibroblasts to unreacted/leached components of composites differs somewhat from odontoblasts.     

Comparison of composite curing parameters: effects of light source and curing mode on conversion, temperature rise and polymerization shrinkage

This study analyzed the degree of conversion, temperature increase and polymerization shrinkage of two hybrid composite materials polymerized with a halogen lamp using three illumination modes and a photopolymerization device based on blue light emitting diodes. The degree of conversion of Tetric Ceram (TC) (Ivoclar Vivadent) and Filtek Z 250 (F) (3M/ESPE) was measured by Fourier transformation infrared spectroscopy at the surface and 2-mm depth; temperature rise was measured by digital multimeter, and linear polymerization shrinkage was measured during cure by digital laser interferometry. Composite samples were illuminated by quartz-tungsten-halogen curing unit (QTH) (Astralis 7, Ivoclar Vivadent) under the following modes: "high power" (HH) 40 seconds at 750 mW/cm2, "low power" (HL) 40 seconds at 400 mW/cm2 and "pulse/soft-start" (HP) increasing from 150 to 400 mW/cm2 during 15 seconds followed by 25 seconds pulsating between 400 and 750 mW/cm2 in 2-second intervals and by light emitting diodes (LED) (Lux-o-Max, Akeda Dental) with emitted intensity 10 seconds at 50 mW/cm2 and 30 seconds at 150 mW/cm2. A significantly higher temperature increase was obtained for both materials using the HH curing mode of halogen light compared to the HP and HL modes and the LED curing unit after 40 seconds. Significantly lower temperature values after 10-second illumination were obtained when LED was used compared to all halogen modes. For all curing modes, there was no significant difference in temperature rise between 20 and 40 seconds of illumination. Results for the degree of conversion measurements show that there is a significant difference in the case of illumination of resin composite samples with LED at the surface and 2 mm depth. For polymerization shrinkage, lower values after 40 seconds were obtained using LED compared to QTH.     

Effect of irradiation type (LED or QTH) on photo-activated composite shrinkage strain kinetics,temperature rise,and hardness

This study compares commercially available light-emitting diode (LED) lights with a quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) unit for photo-activating resin-based composites (RBC). Shrinkage strain kinetics and temperature within the RBC were measured simultaneously using the 'deflecting disc technique' and a thermocouple. Surface hardness (Knoop) at the bottom of 1.5-mm thick RBC specimens was measured 24 h after irradiation to indicate degree of cure. Irradiation was performed for 40 s using either the continuous or the ramp-curing mode of a QTH and a LED light (800 mW cm(-2) and 320 mW cm(-2), respectively) or the continuous mode of a lower intensity LED light (160 mW cm(-2)). For Herculite XRV and Filtek Z250 (both containing only camphoroquinone as a photo-initiator) the QTH and the stronger LED light produced similar hardness, while in the case of Definite (containing an additional photo-activator absorbing at lower wavelength) lower hardness was observed after LED irradiation. The temperature rise during polymerization and heating from radiation were lower with LED compared to QTH curing. The fastest increase of polymerization contraction was observed after QTH continuous irradiation, followed by the stronger and the weaker LED light in the continuous mode. Ramp curing decreased contraction speed even more. Shrinkage strain after 60 min was greater following QTH irradiation compared with both LED units (Herculite, Definite) or with the weaker LED light (Z250).     

Depth of cure and surface microhardness of composite resin cured with blue LED curing lights.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the depth of cure and surface microhardness of Filtek Z250 composite resin (3M-Espe) (shades B1, A3, and C4) when cured with three commercially available light emitting diode (LED) curing lights [E-light (GC), Elipar Freelight (3M-ESPE), 475H (RF Lab Systems)], compared with a high intensity quartz tungsten halogen (HQTH) light (Kerr Demetron Optilux 501) and a conventional quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) lamp (Sirona S1 dental unit). METHODS: The effects of light source and resin shade were evaluated as independent variables. Depth of cure after 40 s of exposure was determined using the ISO 4049:2000 method, and Vickers hardness determined at 1.0 mm intervals. RESULTS: HQTH and QTH lamps gave the greatest depth of cure. The three LED lights showed similar performances across all parameters, and each unit exceeded the ISO standard for depth of cure except GC ELight for shade B1. In terms of shade, LED lights gave greater curing depths with A3 shade, while QTH and HQTH lights gave greater curing depths with C4 shade. Hardness at the resin surface was not significantly different between LED and conventional curing lights, however, below the surface, hardness reduced more rapidly for the LED lights, especially at depths beyond 3 mm. SIGNIFICANCE: Since the performance of the three LED lights meets the ISO standard for depth of cure, these systems appear suitable for routine clinical application for resin curing.     

Effect of exposure time on curing efficiency of polymerizing units equipped with light-emitting diodes

A study was conducted to evaluate the top and bottom hardness of two composites cured using polymerizing units equipped with light-emitting diodes [LED] (LEDemetron; Elipar FreeLight, Coltolux LED) and one quartz-tungsten halogen device [QTH] (Optilux 501) under different exposure times (20, 40 and 60 sec). A matrix mold 5 mm in diameter and 2 mm in depth was made to obtain five disc-shaped specimens for each experimental group. The specimens were cured by one of the light-curing units (LCUs) for 20, 40 or 60 sec, and the hardness was measured with a Vickers hardness-measuring instrument (50 g/30 sec). Data were subjected to three-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05). LED LCUs were as effective as the QTH device for curing both composites. A significant increase in the microhardness values were observed for all light LCUs when the exposure time was changed from 20 sec to 40 sec. The Z250 composite showed hardness values that were usually higher than those of the Charisma composite under similar experimental conditions. LED LCUs are as efficient for curing composites as the QTH device as long as an exposure time of 40 sec or higher is employed. An exposure time of 40 sec is required to provide composites with a uniform and high Knoop hardness when LED light-curing units are employed.     

Temperature rise induced by some light emitting diode and quartz-tungsten-halogen curing units

Because of the risk of thermal damage to the pulp, the temperature rise induced by light-curing units should not be too high. LED (light emitting diode) curing units have the main part of their irradiation in the blue range and have been reported to generate less heat than QTH (quartz-tungsten-halogen) curing units. This study had two aims: first, to measure the temperature rise induced by ten LED and three QTH curing units; and, second, to relate the measured temperature rise to the power density of the curing units. The light-induced temperature rise was measured by means of a thermocouple embedded in a small cylinder of resin composite. The power density was measured by using a dental radiometer. For LED units, the temperature rise increased with increasing power density, in a statistically significant manner. Two of the three QTH curing units investigated resulted in a higher temperature rise than LED curing units of the same power density. Previous findings, that LED curing units induce less temperature rise than QTH units, does not hold true in general.     

Light-emitting diode curing light irradiance and polymerization of resin-based composite

BACKGROUND: Light-emitting diode (LED) curing lights are becoming popular; however, questions about their efficiency remain. The authors performed a comprehensive analysis of the properties of resin-based composites cured with LED lights. METHODS: The authors evaluated seven LED lights and one quartz-tungsten-halogen light (control). They measured intensity, depth of cure (DOC), degree of conversion (DC), hardness and temperature rise. They used three shades of a hybrid resin-based composite and a microfill composite, as well as one shade of another hybrid composite. RESULTS: Two LED lights required additional cure time to reach a DOC similar to that of the control light. DC at the top of the samples was independent of the light used. At 2.0 millimeters, the DC for several LED lights was significantly lower than that for the control light and was correlated strongly to the light's intensity. The bottom-to-top ratio for hardness of resin-based composites cured by all but one light was greater than 0.80. All LED lights except one had smaller temperature rise than did the control light. CONCLUSIONS: Six of the seven LED curing lights performed similarly to a quartz-tungsten-halogen curing light in curing resin-based composites. Clinical Implications. While LED curing lights and a quartz-tungsten-halogen light could cure resin-based composites, some resin-based composites cured with LED lights may require additional curing time or smaller increments of thickness.