Ability of four dental radiometers to measure the light output from nine curing lights

Shimokawa, Carlos Alberto Kenji; Harlow, Jessie; Turbino, Miriam Lacalle; Price, Richard

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2016.08.010

Cited by 27 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Bluephase 1 device demonstrated irradiance values for Elipar DeepCure-S compared to the laboratory instruments by approximately 15%. In general, the Bluephase II had an accuracy of 10% compared to a laboratorygrade meter, the same claimed by the manufacturer (20).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…In addition, there was a great variation among handheld radiometer brands, with those using an analog style generally providing lower irradiance values than the digital ones. This variation may be explained by differences in size and type of the sensor of these handheld radiometers (20). Usually these devices contain a small silicon photodiode detector that converts the LCU photons into electrical current, and than into units of irradiance (21).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Usually these devices contain a small silicon photodiode detector that converts the LCU photons into electrical current, and than into units of irradiance (21). Difference in sensor size of the handheld radiometers can influence the irradiance results because the irradiance is the quotient of the power and the area of the LCU tip (20). A small detector and a narrow entrance aperture of the dental radiometers avoid it to measure all of the light from the LCU (21).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A small detector and a narrow entrance aperture of the dental radiometers avoid it to measure all of the light from the LCU (21). Also, the light diffusor of the dental radiometers may not be able to prevent the measurement of the hot spots (20). Thus, handheld dental curing radiometers are not recommended to accurately report irradiance and should not be used in research studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A handheld radiometer is designed to measure exitance irradiance of LCUs and not the radiant exposure received by the restoration (18,19) nor the LCU radiant power emitted. However, a new handheld dental radiometer was developed to measure both irradiance and radiant power of LCUs: Bluephase II (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) (20). To date, little research exists comparing this new radiometer with the performance of other commercial products, or to that of laboratory based measurement instruments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Dental Curing Light

Price

2017

Dental Composite Materials for Direct Restorations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of flowable liners on the shrinkage vectors of bulk-fill composites

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This investigation evaluated the effect of flowable liners beneath a composite restoration applied via different methods on the pattern of shrinkage vectors. Methods Forty molars were divided into five groups (n = 8), and cylindrical cavities were prepared and bonded with a self-etch adhesive (AdheSe). Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TBF) was used as the filling material in all cavities. The flowable liners Tetric EvoFlow Bulk Fill (TEF) and SDR were used to line the cavity floor. In gp1-TBF, the flowable composite was not used. TEF was applied in a thin layer in gp2-fl/TEF + TBF and gp3-fl/TEF + TBFincremental. Two flowable composites with a layer thickness of 2 mm were compared in gp4-fl/TEF + TBF and gp5-fl/SDR + TBF. TEF and SDR were mixed with radiolucent glass beads, while air bubbles inherently present in TBF served as markers. Each material application was scanned twice by micro-computed tomography before and after light curing. Scans were subjected to image segmentation for calculation of the shrinkage vectors. Results The absence of a flowable liner resulted in the greatest shrinkage vectors. A thin flowable liner (gp2-fl/TEF + TBFbulk) resulted in larger overall shrinkage vectors for the whole restoration than a thick flowable liner (gp4-fl/TEF + TBF). A thin flowable liner and incremental application (gp3-fl/TEF + TBFincremental) yielded the smallest shrinkage vectors. SDR yielded slightly smaller shrinkage vectors for the whole restoration than that observed in gp4-fl/TEF + TBF. Conclusions Thick flowable liner layers had a more pronounced stress-relieving effect than thin layers regardless of the flowable liner type. Clinical relevance It is recommended to apply a flowable liner (thin or thick) beneath bulk-fill composites, preferably incrementally.

show abstract

Ability of four dental radiometers to measure the light output from nine curing lights

Cited by 27 publications

References 22 publications

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

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

The Dental Curing Light

Effects of flowable liners on the shrinkage vectors of bulk-fill composites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About