Dental Light-Curing-Assessing the Blue-Light Hazard

Compressive modulus, translucency, and irradiance transmittance of clear PVS materials used for resin injection molding technique

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the compressive modulus, translucency, and light curing irradiance transmittance of four clear polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) materials used for the injection molding technique at varying thicknesses, and to assess the correlation between color parameters and irradiance transmittance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four clear PVS materials (Exaclear, Clear Bite Matrix, Affinity Crystal, and Memosil 2) were used in this study. Compressive modulus was measured by compressing cylindrical PVS specimens (n = 9; d = 10 mm; t = 6 mm) up to 30% strain using a universal testing machine. For the translucency analysis and irradiance transmittance, specimens (n = 5) were fabricated with five different thicknesses (d = 12 mm and t = 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 mm). The L*, a, *b* values of specimens were obtained using a CIELab spectrophotometer (CMD-700, Konica Minolta) with calibrated white and black tiles; the translucency parameter was calculated. The same specimens were placed onto a spectrophotometer (MARC Light Collector) to measure irradiance transmitted through the specimens from a light curing unit (Valo Corded, Ultradent). Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey post hoc test and the correlation between translucency and irradiance transmittance of materials for each thickness was evaluated using Pearson's correlation.

RESULTS

Compressive modulus differences in PVS materials were significant (one-way ANOVA: df = 3, F = 76.27, p < 0.001); Affinity and Memosil 2 were highest with no significant difference between them (Tukey: t = -1.62; p = 0.382). Clear Bite was higher than Exaclear (Tukey: t = -3.70; p = 0.004). Exaclear was lowest. Translucency decreased with thickness (Two-way ANOVA: df = 3, F = 586.53, p < 0.001; thickness: df = 4, F = 1389.34, p < 0.001). Exaclear was most translucent at all thicknesses. L*, a*, b* values varied by material and thickness (L*: df = 3, F = 1213.32, p < 0.001; a*: df = 3, F = 10766.8, p < 0.001; b*: df = 3, F = 3260.42, p < 0.001). Memosil 2 had lowest b* values. Irradiance transmittance was affected by material and thickness (Two-way ANOVA: df = 4, F = 2388.86, p < 0.001). Exaclear had highest irradiance transmission, surpassing control at >6 mm. Violet/blue irradiance ratio decreased with thickness; Exaclear maintained a constant ratio, indicating preserved violet irradiance. There was a strong positive correlation between translucency and light irradiance (Pearson's r = 0.97, R2 = 0.86-0.96). Radiant exposure analysis suggests adjusting the curing time based on PVS thickness for optimal exposure (10 J/cm2) is achievable within 13-14 s for <2 mm and 21-30 s for 8-10 mm with Clear Bite, Affinity, and Memosil 2; whereas Exaclear requires less time.

CONCLUSIONS

Compressive modulus in clear PVS materials varied by type; Affinity and Memosil 2 demonstrate higher modulus, offering more stability of the clear mold. Translucency and irradiance transmission through clear PVS materials decreased as their thickness increased, yet Exaclear exceled in maintaining high translucency and superior light transmission capabilities. Additionally, there is a strong positive linear correlation between translucency and light irradiance transmittance, offering a method to adjust curing times effectively based on material translucency.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The light curing time to adequately polymerize composite through clear impression material may need to be increased, particularly with thicker matrices or less translucent materials.

Shedding light on the problem: Proficiency and maintenance practices of light-curing units among dental assistants

BACKGROUND

Proper light curing is crucial for the success of restorative dentistry and to bond brackets to teeth, yet the responsibility is often delegated to dental assistants (DAs). This study assessed the proficiency and maintenance protocols of DAs when using light-curing units (LCUs) in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to practicing DAs. The questionnaire contained sections on knowledge, adherence to best practices, and how to maintain the LCU. Demographic data were collected as well. Descriptive statistics and linear regressions at a significance level of (p = 0.05) were conducted to identify any relationships that influenced the DAs' LCU knowledge, practice, and maintenance protocols.

RESULTS

Among the surveyed DAs, 66% were responsible for using the LCU during treatment, 16% used their fingers for support when light curing, 50% held the LCU tip 1-2 mm from the restoration during curing, and 51% did not have a specific maintenance protocol at their workplace. 70% did not know the output from the LCU, and their educational background correlated with knowledge (b = -14.42, p < 0.001). The type of institution type correlated with adherence to best practices (b = -13.65, p = 0.011), and level of knowledge and adherence to maintenance protocols showed a direct correlation (b = 0.002, p = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings revealed that a significant percentage of the DAs who replied had insufficient knowledge and did not follow the best practices and maintenance protocols for the LCUs they were using. Their educational background and workplace factors influenced this knowledge gap, while the absence of a maintenance protocol and suboptimal practices were associated with the type of institution.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

To maintain the best practice, clinicians and institutions should improve the education and training of DAs. Otherwise, inadequate light curing by the DAs may jeopardize the long-term success of many dental procedures.

The Involvement of Photobiology in Contemporary Dentistry-A Narrative Review

Light is an emerging treatment approach that is being used to treat many diseases and conditions such as pain, inflammation, and wound healing. The light used in dental therapy generally lies in visible and invisible spectral regions. Despite many positive results in the treatment of different conditions, this therapy still faces some skepticism, which has prevented its widespread adoption in clinics. The main reason for this skepticism is the lack of comprehensive information about the molecular, cellular, and tissular mechanisms of action, which underpin the positive effects of phototherapy. However, there is currently promising evidence in support of the use of light therapy across a spectrum of oral hard and soft tissues, as well as in a variety of important dental subspecialties, such as endodontics, periodontics, orthodontics, and maxillofacial surgery. The merging of diagnostic and therapeutic light procedures is also seen as a promising area for future expansion. In the next decade, several light technologies are foreseen as becoming integral parts of modern dentistry practice.