AlShaafi M M, Harlow J E, Price H L, Rueggeberg F A, Labrie D, AlQahtani M Q, Price R B
Oper Dent. 2016 Jul-Aug;41(4):397-408. doi: 10.2341/14-281-L. Epub 2015 Dec 11.
Recently, "budget" dental light-emitting diode (LED)-based light-curing units (LCUs) have become available over the Internet. These LCUs claim equal features and performance compared to LCUs from major manufacturers, but at a lower cost. This study examined radiant power, spectral emission, beam irradiance profiles, effective emission ratios, and the ability of LCUs to provide sustained output values during the lifetime of a single, fully charged battery. Three examples of each budget LCU were purchased over the Internet (KY-L029A and KY-L036A, Foshan Keyuan Medical Equipment Co, and the Woodpecker LED.B, Guilin Woodpecker Medical Instrument Co). Major dental manufacturers provided three models: Elipar S10 and Paradigm (3M ESPE) and the Bluephase G2 (Ivoclar Vivadent). Radiant power emissions were measured using a laboratory-grade thermopile system, and the spectral emission was captured using a spectroradiometer system. Irradiance profiles at the tip end were measured using a modified laser beam profiler, and the proportion of optical tip area that delivered in excess of 400 mW/cm(2) (termed the effective emission ratio) was displayed using calibrated beam profile images. Emitted power was monitored over sequential exposures from each LCU starting at a fully charged battery state. The results indicated that there was less than a 100-mW/cm(2) difference between manufacturer-stated average tip end irradiance and the measured output. All the budget lights had smaller optical tip areas, and two demonstrated lower effective emission ratios than did the units from the major manufacturers. The budget lights showed discontinuous values of irradiance over their tip ends. One unit delivered extremely high output levels near the center of the light tip. Two of the budget lights were unable to maintain sustained and stable light output as the battery charge decreased with use, whereas those lights from the major manufacturers all provided a sustained light output for at least 100 exposures as well as visual and audible indications that the units required recharging.
最近,基于“经济型”发光二极管(LED)的光固化机(LCU)已可通过互联网购得。这些LCU宣称与主要制造商生产的LCU具有相同的特性和性能,但成本更低。本研究检测了辐射功率、光谱发射、光束辐照度分布、有效发射率,以及LCU在单个充满电的电池使用寿命期间提供持续输出值的能力。通过互联网购买了每种经济型LCU的三个样本(KY-L029A和KY-L036A,佛山市科源医疗设备有限公司,以及啄木鸟LED.B,桂林啄木鸟医疗器械有限公司)。主要牙科制造商提供了三个型号:Elipar S10和Paradigm(3M ESPE)以及Bluephase G2(义获嘉伟瓦登特公司)。使用实验室级热电堆系统测量辐射功率发射,并使用光谱辐射计系统采集光谱发射。使用改良的激光光束轮廓仪测量尖端的辐照度分布,并使用校准后的光束轮廓图像显示输出超过400 mW/cm²的光学尖端区域比例(称为有效发射率)。从每个LCU处于充满电的电池状态开始,对连续曝光的发射功率进行监测。结果表明,制造商声明的平均尖端辐照度与测量输出之间的差异小于100 mW/cm²。所有经济型光固化机的光学尖端面积较小,且有两款的有效发射率低于主要制造商的产品。经济型光固化机在其尖端的辐照度值不连续。有一台在光尖端中心附近输出极高水平。随着电池电量因使用而减少,两款经济型光固化机无法维持持续稳定的光输出,而主要制造商的那些光固化机均能提供至少100次曝光的持续光输出,以及设备需要充电的视觉和听觉指示。