Accuracy of Irradiance and Power of Light-Curing Units Measured With Handheld or Laboratory Grade Radiometers

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Giannini,Marcelo
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: André,Carolina Bosso, Gobbo,Vanessa Cavalli, Rueggeberg,Frederick Allen
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Brazilian Dental Journal
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402019000400397
Resumo: Abstract This study measured and compared exitance irradiance and power of 4 commercial dental light-curing units (LCU) (Elipar S10, Elipar DeepCure-S, Corded VALO and Bluephase Style) using different types of radiometers. The devices used to analyze the LCU were classified as either handheld analog (Henry Schein, Spring, Demetron 100A, Demetron 100B and Demetron 200), handheld digital (Bluephase 1, Bluephase II, Coltolux, CureRite and Hilux), or laboratory instruments (Thermopile and Integrating Sphere). The laboratory instruments and the Bluephase II radiometer were also used to measure the LCU’s power (mW). The LCU’s were activated for 20 s (n=5). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test (a=0.05). Among the LCU, the laboratory instruments presented different irradiance values, except for Corded VALO. The Coltolux and Hilux radiometers measured greater irradiance values compared to the laboratory instruments for the four LCUs tested. Within a given LCU, handheld analog units measured lower irradiance values, compared to handheld digital and laboratory instruments, except using the Spring radiometer for the Elipar S10 LCU. None of the handheld radiometers were able to measure similar irradiance values compared to laboratory instruments, except for Elipar S10 when comparing Bluephase 1 and Thermopile. Regarding power measurement, Bluephase II always presented the lowest values compared to the laboratory instruments. These findings suggest that the handheld radiometers utilized by practitioners (analog or digital) exhibit a wide range of irradiance values and may show lower outcomes compared to laboratory based instruments.
id FUNORP-1_7c553c96bd1c81206eb57ce71aa884cc
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0103-64402019000400397
network_acronym_str FUNORP-1
network_name_str Brazilian Dental Journal
repository_id_str
spelling Accuracy of Irradiance and Power of Light-Curing Units Measured With Handheld or Laboratory Grade RadiometerspolymerizationLED dental curing lightspowerirradianceAbstract This study measured and compared exitance irradiance and power of 4 commercial dental light-curing units (LCU) (Elipar S10, Elipar DeepCure-S, Corded VALO and Bluephase Style) using different types of radiometers. The devices used to analyze the LCU were classified as either handheld analog (Henry Schein, Spring, Demetron 100A, Demetron 100B and Demetron 200), handheld digital (Bluephase 1, Bluephase II, Coltolux, CureRite and Hilux), or laboratory instruments (Thermopile and Integrating Sphere). The laboratory instruments and the Bluephase II radiometer were also used to measure the LCU’s power (mW). The LCU’s were activated for 20 s (n=5). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test (a=0.05). Among the LCU, the laboratory instruments presented different irradiance values, except for Corded VALO. The Coltolux and Hilux radiometers measured greater irradiance values compared to the laboratory instruments for the four LCUs tested. Within a given LCU, handheld analog units measured lower irradiance values, compared to handheld digital and laboratory instruments, except using the Spring radiometer for the Elipar S10 LCU. None of the handheld radiometers were able to measure similar irradiance values compared to laboratory instruments, except for Elipar S10 when comparing Bluephase 1 and Thermopile. Regarding power measurement, Bluephase II always presented the lowest values compared to the laboratory instruments. These findings suggest that the handheld radiometers utilized by practitioners (analog or digital) exhibit a wide range of irradiance values and may show lower outcomes compared to laboratory based instruments.Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto2019-07-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402019000400397Brazilian Dental Journal v.30 n.4 2019reponame:Brazilian Dental Journalinstname:Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)instacron:FUNORP10.1590/0103-6440201902430info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGiannini,MarceloAndré,Carolina BossoGobbo,Vanessa CavalliRueggeberg,Frederick Alleneng2019-08-01T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0103-64402019000400397Revistahttps://www.scielo.br/j/bdj/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpbdj@forp.usp.br||sergio@fosjc.unesp.br1806-47600103-6440opendoar:2019-08-01T00:00Brazilian Dental Journal - Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Accuracy of Irradiance and Power of Light-Curing Units Measured With Handheld or Laboratory Grade Radiometers
title Accuracy of Irradiance and Power of Light-Curing Units Measured With Handheld or Laboratory Grade Radiometers
spellingShingle Accuracy of Irradiance and Power of Light-Curing Units Measured With Handheld or Laboratory Grade Radiometers
Giannini,Marcelo
polymerization
LED dental curing lights
power
irradiance
title_short Accuracy of Irradiance and Power of Light-Curing Units Measured With Handheld or Laboratory Grade Radiometers
title_full Accuracy of Irradiance and Power of Light-Curing Units Measured With Handheld or Laboratory Grade Radiometers
title_fullStr Accuracy of Irradiance and Power of Light-Curing Units Measured With Handheld or Laboratory Grade Radiometers
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of Irradiance and Power of Light-Curing Units Measured With Handheld or Laboratory Grade Radiometers
title_sort Accuracy of Irradiance and Power of Light-Curing Units Measured With Handheld or Laboratory Grade Radiometers
author Giannini,Marcelo
author_facet Giannini,Marcelo
André,Carolina Bosso
Gobbo,Vanessa Cavalli
Rueggeberg,Frederick Allen
author_role author
author2 André,Carolina Bosso
Gobbo,Vanessa Cavalli
Rueggeberg,Frederick Allen
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Giannini,Marcelo
André,Carolina Bosso
Gobbo,Vanessa Cavalli
Rueggeberg,Frederick Allen
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv polymerization
LED dental curing lights
power
irradiance
topic polymerization
LED dental curing lights
power
irradiance
description Abstract This study measured and compared exitance irradiance and power of 4 commercial dental light-curing units (LCU) (Elipar S10, Elipar DeepCure-S, Corded VALO and Bluephase Style) using different types of radiometers. The devices used to analyze the LCU were classified as either handheld analog (Henry Schein, Spring, Demetron 100A, Demetron 100B and Demetron 200), handheld digital (Bluephase 1, Bluephase II, Coltolux, CureRite and Hilux), or laboratory instruments (Thermopile and Integrating Sphere). The laboratory instruments and the Bluephase II radiometer were also used to measure the LCU’s power (mW). The LCU’s were activated for 20 s (n=5). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test (a=0.05). Among the LCU, the laboratory instruments presented different irradiance values, except for Corded VALO. The Coltolux and Hilux radiometers measured greater irradiance values compared to the laboratory instruments for the four LCUs tested. Within a given LCU, handheld analog units measured lower irradiance values, compared to handheld digital and laboratory instruments, except using the Spring radiometer for the Elipar S10 LCU. None of the handheld radiometers were able to measure similar irradiance values compared to laboratory instruments, except for Elipar S10 when comparing Bluephase 1 and Thermopile. Regarding power measurement, Bluephase II always presented the lowest values compared to the laboratory instruments. These findings suggest that the handheld radiometers utilized by practitioners (analog or digital) exhibit a wide range of irradiance values and may show lower outcomes compared to laboratory based instruments.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-07-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402019000400397
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402019000400397
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/0103-6440201902430
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Dental Journal v.30 n.4 2019
reponame:Brazilian Dental Journal
instname:Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)
instacron:FUNORP
instname_str Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)
instacron_str FUNORP
institution FUNORP
reponame_str Brazilian Dental Journal
collection Brazilian Dental Journal
repository.name.fl_str_mv Brazilian Dental Journal - Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto (FUNORP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv bdj@forp.usp.br||sergio@fosjc.unesp.br
_version_ 1754204095704465408