College of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Clinical Studies, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2021 Jan 29;16(1):e0245830. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245830. eCollection 2021.
This study investigated the accuracy of sixteen models of commercial dental radiometers (DR) in measuring the output of thirty-eight LED light curing units (LCUs) compared with a 'gold standard' laboratory-grade spectrometer integrating-sphere (IS) assembly. Nineteen Type I (fiber-bundle light guide) and nineteen Type II (light source in head) LED LCUs were tested, some using different output modes and light guides, resulting in 61 test subsets per radiometer. Gold standard (GS) output measurements (n = 3) were taken using the IS and confirmed with two types of laboratory-grade power meter (PowerMax-Pro 150 HD and PM10-19C; Coherent). One DR (Bluephase Meter II, Ivoclar; BM II) allowed power (mW) as well as irradiance (mW/cm2) recordings. Irradiance readings (n = 3) for each DR/LCU were compared with the IS derived irradiance. Individual LCU irradiance values were normalized against IS data. The GS method yielded reproducible data with a 0.4% pooled coefficient of variation for the LCUs. Mean power values ranged from 0.19 W to 2.40 W. Overall power values for the laboratory-grade power meters were within 5% of GS values. Individual LCU/DR normalized irradiance values ranged from 7% to 535% of the GS; an order of magnitude greater than previous reports. BM II was the only radiometer to average within 20% of normalized pooled GS irradiance values, whereas other radiometers differed by up to 85%. Ten radiometers failed to provide any reading for 1 LCU. When tested with the PowerMax-Pro in high speed (20 kHz) mode, eight LCUs demonstrated pulsing outputs undetectable at the standard (10 Hz) data acquisition rate. Sufficient light exposure is critical for the successful curing of dental resin-based materials. Substantial discrepancies may occur between actual and estimated radiometric data using current DRs. More accurate DRs need to be developed. Manufacturers' accuracy claims for DRs should specify compatible LCUs and testing parameters.
本研究调查了十六种商业牙科辐射计（DR）在测量三十八种 LED 光固化器（LCU）输出时的准确性，与“金标准”实验室级积分球（IS）组件的测量结果进行比较。十九种 I 型（光纤束导光）和十九种 II 型（光源在头部）LED LCU 进行了测试，其中一些使用不同的输出模式和导光管，导致每个辐射计有 61 个测试子集。使用 IS 进行了金标准（GS）输出测量（n = 3），并使用两种实验室级功率计（PowerMax-Pro 150 HD 和 PM10-19C；Coherent）进行了确认。一种辐射计（Bluephase Meter II，Ivoclar；BM II）可以记录功率（mW）和辐照度（mW/cm2）。每个 DR/LCU 的辐照度读数（n = 3）与 IS 得出的辐照度进行了比较。将个别 LCU 的辐照度值与 IS 数据归一化。GS 方法产生了具有 0.4% 池变异系数的可重复数据，对于 LCUs 而言。平均功率值范围为 0.19 W 至 2.40 W。实验室级功率计的总体功率值在 GS 值的 5% 以内。个别 LCU/DR 归一化辐照度值范围为 GS 的 7% 至 535%；数量级大于以前的报告。只有 BM II 辐射计的平均辐照度值与归一化的 GS 辐照度值相差在 20%以内，而其他辐射计的辐照度值相差高达 85%。有十个辐射计无法为一个 LCU 提供任何读数。当与 PowerMax-Pro 在高速（20 kHz）模式下测试时，八个 LCU 展示了在标准（10 Hz）数据采集速率下无法检测到的脉冲输出。足够的光暴露对于成功固化牙科树脂基材料至关重要。使用当前的 DR，实际和估计的辐射测量数据之间可能会出现很大差异。需要开发更准确的 DR。制造商对 DR 的准确性声明应指定兼容的 LCU 和测试参数。
