Price Richard B T, Felix Christopher M, Whalen J Marc
Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 1W2.
J Can Dent Assoc. 2010;76:a94.
To determine the effect of operator, curing light and preparation location, as well as any correlations among these variables, on the amount of light energy delivered to simulated cavity preparations.
Each of 10 dentists and 10 fourth-year dental students light-cured a Class I preparation in tooth 26 and a Class V preparation in tooth 37 in a dental mannequin head. The operators exposed each preparation for 10 seconds with each of 3 LED-based curing lights (Bluephase G2 on high power, Demi and VALO on standard power). Each operator also used the VALO unit in the plasma mode for 2 sequential 3-second curing cycles. For each combination of operator, curing light and preparation, the irradiance (mW/cm(2)) received at the base of the preparation was measured with a laboratory-grade spectroradiometer, and software was used to calculate the energy density delivered in real time. The statistical analysis included 3-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Fisher protected least significant difference (PLSD) test for post hoc pairwise comparisons.
There was a large qualitative and quantitative variation in the irradiance delivered to the preparations by each operator. Three-way ANOVA showed no statistically significant differences between dentists and dental students in terms of the amount of energy delivered (p = 0.90). However, there were statistically significant differences in energy delivered by the various curing lights (p < 0.001) and between the 2 preparation locations (p < 0.001). According to the Fisher PLSD test for post hoc pairwise comparison of means, the VALO unit used in the plasma mode for two 3-second curing cycles delivered the most energy (16.4 +/- 3.1 J/cm(2)) to the Class I preparation, and the same light used for 10 seconds in the standard mode delivered the least amount of energy (9.9 +/- 2.4 J/cm(2)) (p < 0.001). For the Class V preparation, the VALO unit used in the plasma mode for two 3-second curing cycles delivered the most energy (12.5 +/- 4.0 J/cm(2)), and the Demi unit, used for 10 seconds, delivered the least energy (7.4 +/- 2.5 J/cm(2)).
The energy delivered by a curing light to a preparation in a simulated clinical environment was affected by the operator's light-delivery technique, the choice of curing light and the location of the preparation.
确定操作人员、固化灯及制备位置，以及这些变量之间的任何相关性，对传递到模拟窝洞制备处的光能总量的影响。
10名牙医和10名牙科四年级学生分别在牙科人体模型头部对26号牙的I类洞型和37号牙的V类洞型进行光固化。操作人员使用3种基于发光二极管的固化灯（高功率的Bluephase G2、标准功率的Demi和VALO）中的每种灯，对每个洞型照射10秒。每位操作人员还使用VALO装置以等离子体模式进行两个连续3秒的固化周期。对于操作人员、固化灯和洞型的每种组合，使用实验室级光谱辐射计测量在洞型底部接收的辐照度（mW/cm²），并使用软件实时计算传递的能量密度。统计分析包括三因素方差分析（ANOVA）和用于事后两两比较的Fisher保护最小显著差异（PLSD）检验。
每位操作人员传递到洞型的辐照度在质量和数量上存在很大差异。三因素方差分析显示牙医和牙科学生在能量传递量方面无统计学显著差异（p = 0.90）。然而，不同固化灯传递的能量存在统计学显著差异（p < 0.001），且在两个制备位置之间也存在统计学显著差异（p < 0.001）。根据用于均值事后两两比较的Fisher PLSD检验，以等离子体模式进行两个3秒固化周期的VALO装置向I类洞型传递的能量最多（16.4 ± 3.1 J/cm²），而在标准模式下使用10秒的同一盏灯传递的能量最少（9.9 ± 2.4 J/cm²）（p < 0.001）。对于V类洞型，以等离子体模式进行两个3秒固化周期的VALO装置传递的能量最多（12.5 ± 4.0 J/cm²），而使用10秒的Demi装置传递的能量最少（7.4 ± 2.5 J/cm²）。
在模拟临床环境中，固化灯传递到制备处的能量受操作人员的光传递技术、固化灯的选择以及制备位置的影响。
