Suppr超能文献

使用手持式或实验室级辐射计测量光固化灯的辐照度和功率的准确性。

Accuracy of Irradiance and Power of Light-Curing Units Measured With Handheld or Laboratory Grade Radiometers.

作者信息

Giannini Marcelo, André Carolina Bosso, Gobbo Vanessa Cavalli, Rueggeberg Frederick Allen

机构信息

Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, UNICAMP - Universidade de Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.

Department of Restorative Sciences, Dental College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA.

出版信息

Braz Dent J. 2019 Jul 22;30(4):397-403. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201902430.

Abstract

This study measured and compared exitance irradiance and power of 4 commercial dental light-curing units (LCU) (Elipar S10, Elipar DeepCure-S, Corded VALO and Bluephase Style) using different types of radiometers. The devices used to analyze the LCU were classified as either handheld analog (Henry Schein, Spring, Demetron 100A, Demetron 100B and Demetron 200), handheld digital (Bluephase 1, Bluephase II, Coltolux, CureRite and Hilux), or laboratory instruments (Thermopile and Integrating Sphere). The laboratory instruments and the Bluephase II radiometer were also used to measure the LCU's power (mW). The LCU's were activated for 20 s (n=5). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test (a=0.05). Among the LCU, the laboratory instruments presented different irradiance values, except for Corded VALO. The Coltolux and Hilux radiometers measured greater irradiance values compared to the laboratory instruments for the four LCUs tested. Within a given LCU, handheld analog units measured lower irradiance values, compared to handheld digital and laboratory instruments, except using the Spring radiometer for the Elipar S10 LCU. None of the handheld radiometers were able to measure similar irradiance values compared to laboratory instruments, except for Elipar S10 when comparing Bluephase 1 and Thermopile. Regarding power measurement, Bluephase II always presented the lowest values compared to the laboratory instruments. These findings suggest that the handheld radiometers utilized by practitioners (analog or digital) exhibit a wide range of irradiance values and may show lower outcomes compared to laboratory based instruments.

摘要

本研究使用不同类型的辐射计测量并比较了4种商用牙科光固化单元(LCU)(Elipar S10、Elipar DeepCure-S、有线VALO和Bluephase Style)的出射辐照度和功率。用于分析LCU的设备分为手持式模拟设备(Henry Schein、Spring、Demetron 100A、Demetron 100B和Demetron 200)、手持式数字设备(Bluephase 1、Bluephase II、Coltolux、CureRite和Hilux)或实验室仪器(热电堆和积分球)。实验室仪器和Bluephase II辐射计也用于测量LCU的功率(毫瓦)。将LCU激活20秒(n = 5)。使用Kruskal-Wallis和Student-Newman-Keuls多重比较检验(α = 0.05)对数据进行分析。在LCU中,除了有线VALO外,实验室仪器呈现出不同的辐照度值。对于所测试的四种LCU,Coltolux和Hilux辐射计测量的辐照度值高于实验室仪器。在给定的LCU内,与手持式数字设备和实验室仪器相比,手持式模拟设备测量的辐照度值较低,但Elipar S10 LCU使用Spring辐射计的情况除外。除了在比较Bluephase 1和热电堆时的Elipar S10外,没有手持式辐射计能够测量与实验室仪器相似的辐照度值。关于功率测量,与实验室仪器相比,Bluephase II始终呈现最低值。这些发现表明,从业者使用的手持式辐射计(模拟或数字)表现出广泛的辐照度值,并且与基于实验室的仪器相比可能显示出较低的结果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验