Barghi Nasser, Fischer Dan E, Pham Tuan
Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2007 Jul;28(7):380-4; quiz 385-6.
In a survey published in 1994, it was reported that nearly 30% of dental office curing lights had an intensity output (power density) of < 200 mW/cm2. This study was designed to examine the types of curing lights and the adequacy of the intensity output in the same localities after 10 years. A total of 161 curing lights in 65 dental offices located in 2 metropolitan areas in Texas were examined for the following variables: types of light, power density, resin build-up on the tips, and size of the tips. Two new radiometers were used to measure the outputs. The average intensity output for each light was placed in 5 categories ranging from < 150 mW/cm2 to > 500 mW/cm2. Of 161 lights examined, 127 (78.9%) were halogen, 22 (13.6%) were lightemitting diodes (LEDs), and 12 (7.4%) were plasma arc curing (PAC) lights. The intensity outputs (mW/cm2) of all examined lights were placed into 5 groups: (1) < 149 = 1.8% of lights; (2) 150 to 249 = 8.6%; (3) 250 to 349 = 6.2%; (4) 350 to 499 = 18.6%; and (5) >500 = 64.0%. Build-up on the tip was: none (23%), light (49.7%), moderate (12.4%), and heavy (13.7%). A comparison of the results of this study with the 1994 survey report shows an overall improvement in the intensity output in dental offices. LED and PAC lights constituted 21.2% of curing lights in this survey.
在1994年发表的一项调查中,据报道,近30%的牙科诊所固化灯的强度输出(功率密度)<200 mW/cm²。本研究旨在10年后检查同一地区固化灯的类型以及强度输出是否足够。对位于得克萨斯州两个大都市地区65家牙科诊所的161台固化灯进行了以下变量的检查:灯的类型、功率密度、灯头树脂堆积情况以及灯头尺寸。使用两台新的辐射计测量输出。每盏灯的平均强度输出分为5类,范围从<150 mW/cm²到>500 mW/cm²。在检查的161盏灯中,127盏(78.9%)是卤素灯,22盏(13.6%)是发光二极管(LED)灯,12盏(7.4%)是等离子弧固化(PAC)灯。所有检查灯的强度输出(mW/cm²)分为5组:(1)<149 = 1.8%的灯;(2)150至249 = 8.6%;(3)250至349 = 6.2%;(4)350至499 = 18.6%;(5)>500 = 64.0%。灯头堆积情况为:无(23%)、轻度(49.7%)、中度(12.4%)和重度(13.7%)。本研究结果与1994年调查报告的比较显示,牙科诊所的强度输出总体有所改善。在本次调查中,LED灯和PAC灯占固化灯的21.2%。