Department of Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Gunduliceva 5, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia,
Lasers Med Sci. 2015 Feb;30(2):567-76. doi: 10.1007/s10103-013-1366-6. Epub 2013 Jun 19.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface and intrapulpal temperatures after treatments with different bleaching gels subjected to different types of light activation. A K-type thermocouple and infrared thermometer were used to measure the temperature increase during the 15- or 30-min treatment period. Light-emitting diode with a center wavelength of 405 nm (LED405), organic light-emitting diode (OLED), and femtosecond laser were tested and compared to ZOOM2. The tooth surface was treated with five bleaching agents and Vaseline which served as a control.The generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was applied for testing the differences in temperature increase. The ZOOM2 light source led to the largest increase in mean pulpal and tooth surface temperatures of 21.1 and 22.8 °C, followed by focused femtosecond laser which increased the pulpal and surface temperatures by up to 15.7 and 16.8 °C. Treatments with unfocused femtosecond laser, LED405, and OLED induced significantly lower mean temperature increases (p < 0.001 for each comparison with ZOOM2 and focused femtosecond laser), both in the pulp chamber (up to 2.7, 2.5, and 1.4 °C) and at the tooth surface (up to 3.2, 3.4, and 1.8 °C). Significant differences between pulp chamber and tooth surface measurements were obtained for all types of bleaching gel, during treatments with ZOOM2 (p < 0.001), LED405 (p < 0.001), and unfocused (p < 0.001) and focused femtosecond laser (p ≤ 0.002). Different bleaching agents or Vaseline can serve as an isolating layer. Focused femtosecond laser and ZOOM2 produced large temperature increases in the pulp chamber and at the tooth surface. Caution is advised when using these types of light activation, while LED405, OLED, and unfocused femtosecond laser could be safely used.
本研究旨在评估不同类型光激活下使用不同漂白凝胶处理后的表面和髓内温度。使用 K 型热电偶和红外测温仪在 15 或 30 分钟的治疗期间测量温度升高。测试并比较了中心波长为 405nm 的发光二极管（LED405）、有机发光二极管（OLED）和飞秒激光与 ZOOM2 的性能。将五种漂白剂和凡士林（凡士林用作对照）涂于牙面。采用广义估计方程（GEE）模型比较温度升高的差异。ZOOM2 光源导致牙髓和牙面平均温度升高最大，分别为 21.1°C 和 22.8°C，其次是聚焦飞秒激光，可将牙髓和表面温度分别升高至 15.7°C 和 16.8°C。非聚焦飞秒激光、LED405 和 OLED 治疗引起的平均温度升高显著较低（与 ZOOM2 和聚焦飞秒激光相比，p<0.001），在牙髓腔（最高 2.7°C、2.5°C 和 1.4°C）和牙面（最高 3.2°C、3.4°C 和 1.8°C）均如此。所有类型的漂白凝胶在 ZOOM2（p<0.001）、LED405（p<0.001）、非聚焦（p<0.001）和聚焦飞秒激光（p≤0.002）治疗时，牙髓腔和牙面测量值之间均存在显著差异。不同的漂白剂或凡士林可作为隔离层。聚焦飞秒激光和 ZOOM2 可使牙髓腔和牙面温度显著升高。在使用这些类型的光激活时应谨慎，而 LED405、OLED 和非聚焦飞秒激光可安全使用。
