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.     

Thermal emission and curing efficiency of LED and halogen curing lights

The purpose of this study was to compare the thermal emission and curing efficiency of LED (LEDemetron 1, SDS/Kerr) and QTH (VIP, BISCO) curing lights at maximum output and similar power, power density and energy density using the same light guide. Also, another LED curing light (Allegro, Den-Mat) and the QTH light at reduced power density were tested for comparison. Increase in temperature from the tips of the light guides was measured at 0 and 5 mm in air (23 degrees C) using a temperature probe (Fluke Corp). Pulpal temperature increase was measured using a digital thermometer (Omega Co) and a K-type thermocouple placed on the central pulpal roof of human molars with a Class I occlusal preparation. Measurements were made over 90 seconds with an initial light activation of 40 seconds. To test curing efficiency, resin composites (Z100, A110, 3M/ESPE) were placed in a 2-mm deep and 8-mm wide plastic mold and cured with the LED and QTH curing lights at 1- and 5-mm curing distances. Knoop Hardness Numbers (KHN) were determiped on the top and bottom surfaces (Leco). Bottom hardness values were expressed as a percentage of maximum top hardness. No significant differences were found in maximum thermal emission or KHN ratios between the LED (LEDemetron 1) and the QTH (VIP) at maximum output and similar energy densities (ANOVA/Tukey's; alpha=0.05).     

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.     

Dentin bond strength of composites with self-etching adhesives using LED curing lights

AIM: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of light-emitting diode (LED) light curing units (LCUs) compared with halogen LCUs on the shear bond strength (SBS) of one nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme) and one microhibrid composite (Artemis) with self-etch adhesives. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The buccal surfaces of 60 non-carious extracted human molars were flattened to expose dentin and, subsequently, polished for 60 seconds with 600-grit wet silicon carbide abrasive paper. Specimens were assigned into six groups (n=10) according to composite material, self-etch adhesive, and curing light used as follows: Group 1: Adper Prompt L-Pop (AP) and Filtek Supreme (FS) using an Elipar Free Light (EFL); Group 2: AP and FS using an Elipar Free Light 2 (EFL2); Group 3: AP and FS using a Hilux Expert (HE) light, Group 4: AdheSE (AS)+Artemis (AR) using an EFL; Group 5: AS+AR using an EFL2; and Group 6: AS+AR using a HE light. The specimens were thermocycled for 500 cycles (5 masculineC-55 masculineC) and then loaded to failure in a Zwick universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/minute. SBS values were calculated as megapascals (MPa) and statistically analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test at a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: Mean SBS (+/- standard deviations) values were as follows: Group1: 15.99+/-5.18; Group 2: 18.76+/-6.71; Group 3: 17.70+/-5.04; Group 4: 16.93+/-3.99; Group 5: 18.01+/-5.19, and Group 6: 17.46+/-5.40. There were no statistically significant differences for SBS to dentin among the groups tested. CONCLUSION: The LED curing lights used in the study seem to be comparable with the halogen curing light for nanofill and microhybrid composites used in conjunction with self-etching systems in dentin. The EFL2 reduces curing time, which can be considered as an advantage.     

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.     

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.     

Variation of depth of cure and intensity with distance using LED curing lights.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to determine the correlation between intensity of light-emitting diode (LED) and tungsten-halogen light sources, and depth of cure of a resin composite at different distances. METHODS: Four LED curing lights (Flashlite 1001, Freelight 2, Smartlite IQ and Ultralume 5) and one tungsten halogen (Optilux 501, with 8 and 11 mm tips) were evaluated. Intensity was measured according a modified ISO Standard 10650 at distances of 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 mm between the light tip and detector. Depth of cure (DOC) of TPH Spectrum shade A2 was measured according to the international standard ISO 4049 at the same distances. RESULTS: For all lights, intensity decreased as distance increased. The authors documented a logarithmic correlation between intensity and distance for all lights except the Smartlite IQ, Ultralume 5 and the Optilux 501 with the 11 mm tip, which showed a linear relationship between intensity and distance. All lights demonstrated a logarithmic correlation between intensity and DOC, and a linear correlation between DOC and distance. Smartlite IQ and Optilux 501 (11 mm tip) also had the least reduction in intensity and DOC at 10 mm. SIGNIFICANCE: Clinicians often an experience difficulty placing the light tip close to the resin surface when curing resin composites. While both intensity and DOC decrease with increasing distance, the relationship between these factors and distance may not be similar for all lights and may depend on the characteristics of individual lights.     

LED and halogen lights: effect of ceramic thickness and shade on curing luting resin

The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the hardness of a light-cured luting resin cured under different shades and thicknesses of porcelain with a halogen and a light-emitting diode (LED) light. Square (11 mm x 11 mm) specimens of a commercially available porcelain with thicknesses of 1 mm and 2 mm were fabricated. Two shades of porcelain--A1 representing a high-value, low-chroma porcelain and C4 representing a low-value, high-chroma porcelain--were used to fabricate specimens. Composite luting resin, 0.5 mm in thickness, was placed under each porcelain specimen and light-cured for 30 or 60 seconds with LED or halogen light. The degree of polymerization of resin cement was determined by measuring the microhardness. The control group in this study was a 0.5-mm composite luting resin cured under clear Mylar matrix. No significant differences were recorded between surface hardness of control subgroups and LED subgroups cured for 30 or 60 seconds. A lower hardness value was recorded for 2-mm C4 porcelain cured for 30 and 60 seconds with the halogen light. Although a cumulative comparison of surface hardness revealed similar results for both lights, the LED light provided more consistent results than the halogen light.     

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.     

Optical hazard evaluation of dental curing lights

The potential ocular hazards associated with the use of dental curing lights were evaluated. Recommendations are provided for precluding exposure of personnel to hazardous levels of optical radiation. Users should not stare directly into the dental curing lights at distances shorter than 25 cm (which would not be a likely event). Eye protectors which filter wavelengths below 500 nm may be desired by individual users to reduce discomfort or if surface lamination is applied.     

Light-emitting diode curing lights,Part I

Several manufacturers have introduced new light‐emitting diode (LED) curing lights for the polymerization of light‐activated dental materials. Typically, the advantages claimed for these lights are more efficient curing, decreased heat from the light tip, consistent output over time without degradation, and significantly longer useful life of the diodes compared with quartz‐tungsten‐halogen (QTH) bulbs. Manufacturers also mention portability and ease of use because the units can be powered by rechargeable batteries. This review evaluates the published research on LED‐based curing lights.