Search

This study evaluated the effect of the design of the light-curing unit (LCU) and mouth opening on the properties of bulk-fill resin-based composites (RBCs).Eighty molars received a mesio-occlusal-distal preparation and were restored using two different bulk-fill RBCs, Opus Bulk Fill APS (FGM) and Filtek Bulk Fill One (3M Oral Care), using two different designs of LCU, straight (Valo Cordless [Ultradent]) and angled (Radii-Cal [SDI]). Two mouth openings of 25 and 45 mm at the incisors were used. Forty samples were sectioned mesiodistally. One half was immersed in tetrahydrofuran to examine the effect of the solvent on the RBCs (SE), and the other half to measure the degree of conversion (DC) in proximal and occlusal boxes using Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy. The other 40 samples were subjected to thermomechanical fatigue and immersed in silver nitrate to examine the gingival margin integrity (GMI) using SEM. The irradiance (mW/cm2) and emission spectrum (mW/cm2/nm) from the LCUs were measured using a MARC Resin Calibrator (BlueLight Analytics). DC data were analyzed by 3-way ANOVA and Tukey's test; SE and GMI were analyzed by an ANOVA on Ranks and Dunn test (α = 0.05).The DC values were similar in the occlusal and proximal boxes when using Valo Cordless , irrespective of RBC and the mouth opening used. Lower DC values were measured in proximal boxes when using Radii-Cal. The mouth opening had a greater effect on the irradiance delivered by Radii-Cal. Radii-Cal with 25-mm mouth opening had greater SE and GMI values, whereas the SE and GMI values obtained with Valo Cordless were unaffected by mouth opening.The choice of LCU did not influence the properties of tested bulk-fill RBCs when the 45-mm mouth opening was used. However, when using the 25-mm mouth opening, the choice of LCU did influence the properties of the RBCs.

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/cm2), 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/cm2) 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.