Suppr超能文献

LED 头灯的潜在“蓝光危害”。

The potential 'blue light hazard' from LED headlamps.

机构信息

Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Division of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University, 5981 University Ave., P.O. BOX 15000, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4R2, Canada.

Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4R2, Canada.

出版信息

J Dent. 2022 Oct;125:104226. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104226. Epub 2022 Jul 22.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

Many dental personnel use light-emitting diode (LED) headlamps for hours every day. The potential retinal 'blue light hazard' from these white light headlamps is unknown.

METHODS

The spectral radiant powers received from direct and indirect viewing of an electronic tablet, an LED curing light, a halogen headlamp, and 6 brands of LED headlamps were measured using integrating spheres attached to fiberoptic spectroradiometers. The spectral radiant powers were measured both directly and indirectly at a 35 cm distance, and the maximum daily exposure times (t) were calculated from the blue weighted irradiance values.

RESULTS

The headlamps emitted very different radiant powers, emission spectra, and color temperatures (K). The total powers emitted at zero distance ranged from 47 mW from the halogen headlamp to 378 mW from the most powerful LED headlamp. The color temperatures from the headlamps ranged from 3098 K to 7253 K. The t exposure times in an 8 h day when the headlamps were viewed directly at a distance of 35 cm were: 810 s from the halogen headlamp, 53 to 220 s from the LED headlamps, and 62 s from the LED curing light. Light from the LED headlamps that was reflected back from a white reference tile 35 cm away did not exceed the maximum permissible exposure time for healthy adults. Using a blue dental dam increased the amount of reflected blue light, but t was still greater than 24 h.

CONCLUSIONS

White light LED headlamps emit very different spectra, and they all increase the retinal 'blue light hazard' compared to a halogen source. When the headlamps were viewed directly at a distance of 35 cm, the 'blue light hazard' from some headlamps was greater than from the LED curing light (t = 62 s). Depending on the headlamp brand, t could be reached after only 53s. The light from the LED headlamps that was reflected back from a white surface that was 35 cm away did not exceed the maximum permissible ocular exposure limits for healthy adults.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Reflected white light from dental headlamps does not pose a blue light hazard for healthy adults. Direct viewing may be hazardous, but the hazard can be prevented by using the appropriate blue-light blocking glasses.

摘要

未加标签

许多牙科医务人员每天都会使用发光二极管(LED)头灯数小时。目前尚不清楚这些白色光头灯是否存在视网膜“蓝光危害”。

方法

通过连接光纤分光辐射计的积分球,测量直接和间接观察电子平板电脑、LED 固化灯、卤素头灯和 6 种品牌的 LED 头灯时所接收到的光谱辐射功率。在 35cm 距离处直接和间接测量光谱辐射功率,并根据蓝光加权辐照度值计算最大每日暴露时间(t)。

结果

头灯发出的辐射功率、发射光谱和色温(K)差异很大。在零距离处发出的总功率范围从卤素头灯的 47mW 到最强 LED 头灯的 378mW。头灯的色温范围从 3098K 到 7253K。当直接在 35cm 距离处观察头灯时,每天 8 小时内的 t 暴露时间为:卤素头灯为 810s,LED 头灯为 53 至 220s,LED 固化灯为 62s。距离 35cm 的白色参考瓷砖反射回来的 LED 头灯的光没有超过健康成年人的最大允许暴露时间。使用蓝色牙科橡皮障增加了反射蓝光的量,但 t 仍大于 24 小时。

结论

白色 LED 头灯发出的光谱差异很大,与卤素光源相比,它们都会增加视网膜“蓝光危害”。当直接在 35cm 距离处观察头灯时,一些头灯的“蓝光危害”大于 LED 固化灯(t=62s)。具体取决于头灯品牌,仅需 53s 就可能达到 t。距离 35cm 的白色表面反射回来的 LED 头灯的光没有超过健康成年人的最大允许眼部暴露限值。

临床相关性

来自牙科头灯的反射白光不会对健康成年人造成蓝光危害。直接观察可能有危害,但可以通过使用适当的防蓝光眼镜来预防危害。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验