Effect of infection control barriers on the light output from a multi-peak light curing unit

Abstract

Objectives Curing lights cannot be sterilized and should be covered with an infection control barrier. This study evaluated the effect of barriers when applied correctly and incorrectly on the radiant power (mW), irradiance (mW/cm 2 ), emission spectrum (mW/nm), and beam profile from a multi-peak light-curing unit (LCU). Methods Five plastic barriers (VALO Grand, Ultradent; TIDIShield, TIDI Products; Disposa-Shield, Dentsply Sirona; Cure Sleeve, Kerr; Stretch and Seal, Betty Crocker) and one latex-based barrier (Curelastic, Steri-Shield) were tested. The radiant power (mW) and emission spectrum (mW/nm) from one multi-peak LCU (VALO Grand, Ultradent) was measured using an integrating sphere. LCU tip internal diameter (mm) was measured, then the tip area and irradiance (mW/cm 2 ) were calculated. The beam profiles were measured using a laser beam profiler. Results When applied correctly, the plastic barriers reduced the radiant power output by 5–8%, and the latex-based barrier by 16 %. When the plastic seam or barrier opaque face was positioned over the LCU tip, the power output was reduced by 8–11%. When the plastic barriers were wrinkled, the power output was significantly reduced by 14–26%. The wrinkled latex-based barrier reduced by 28 %, and further reduced the violet light. The beam profiles illustrated the importance of correctly barrier use without wrinkles over the tip. Conclusions Plastic barriers applied correctly reduced the light output (mW) by 5–8 %. The barriers applied incorrectly significantly reduced the light output by 14–26%. The latex-based barrier wrinkled also reduced the amount of violet light. Clinical relevance Infection control curing light barriers should be used to prevent cross-infection between patients. However, they must be applied correctly to reduce their negative effects on the light output

A influência das barreiras translúcidas na eficácia da fotopolimerização odontológica

“…Corroborating our findings, Soares et al (2020) also showed that polyvinyl chloride-based barriers interferes less in irradiance (5%). Multiple layers, presence of wrinkles, lines, or folds can be recurrent, increasing the thickness of the barrier; thus, a thin layer of this material provides less changes in irradiance (Soares, et al, 2020). Another reason to be considered is the good adherence of polyvinyl chloride to the tip of the device due to its characteristics and ability to be molded, reducing bubbles between the barrier and light-curing device.…”

“…Not only the devices' tip, but also the entire equipment and the control buttons must be covered. Thus, translucent barriers are an essential, efficient, economical, and easyto-use method (Ajaj, et al 2018;Soares et al, 2020;Haenel et al, 2015).…”

“…Another advantage of using disposable barriers is the protection against deposition of materials on the tip surface, which usually occurs in many dental offices. Mitton and Wilson (2001) reported that 35% of the light-curing devices had materials adhered to the light tip, reducing the irradiance (Cadenaro et al, 2019;Soares et al, 2020).…”

“…However, these barriers influence the irradiance, which is the amount of light distributed in each area and, consequently, the curing quality of the materials. In addition to subpolymerization, biocompatibility and premature clinical failures may occur, such as restoration fracture, marginal infiltration and color changes (McAndrew, et al, 2011;Sinhoretti, et al, 2018;Mendoza, et al, 2020;Soares, et al, 2020).…”

Utilizing Light Cure Units: A Concise Narrative Review

“…However, the use of gloves or other opaque barriers had a significant effect [ 73 ]. Another study found that there was a reduction of 5–8% when using disposable barriers such as sleeves and plastic food wrap [ 74 ]. This number increased if the barriers were used incorrectly, such as the seam covering the active tip.…”