Korkut Bora, Saygili Cevdet Can, Murat Naci, Bayraktar Ezgi Tuter, Beolchi Rafael S, Tarcin Bilge
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Department of Industrial Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Türkiye.
Clin Oral Investig. 2025 Aug 4;29(8):395. doi: 10.1007/s00784-025-06482-3.
To compare radiant flux, radiant emittance, light scattering, and penetration depth of high-power and low-power dental LED curing units (LCUs) and different output modes.
Ten different, brand-new dental LCUs and different output modes were tested by a laboratory-grade spectroradiometer to evaluate radiant flux and spectral emission. Two radiant emittance values were calculated using the radiant flux values for each curing unit/output mode, together with manufacturer's tip diameter or measured internal tip diameter. Light source width, scattering, total penetration depth (TPD), and main penetration depth (MPD) were also assessed through collected light beam images using Rhodamine B solution. Image processing was done using the Photoshop software to measure the distances. The deemed significance was set at < 0.050 for the statistical analyses.
Measured internal tip diameters were different than stated diameters for all LCUs except Valo X. Valo X Xtra Power mode delivered the highest radiant flux (2704 ± 5 mW), followed by Valo Grand Xtra Power mode (2576 ± 6 mW)(P <.001). The lowest radiant flux was from D Light Pro Low Power mode (449 ± 9 mW)(P <.001). Calculated radiant emittances based on the manufacturer's stated and measured internal tip diameters were up to 27.6% lower than the stated radiant emittances. A positive correlation was observed for TPD, light source width, and radiant emittance (P <.001). Scattering had negative correlations with TPD (P =.014), radiant emittance (P =.003), and tip diameter (P =.007).
The radiant emittance can deviate from the manufacturer's stated values by up to 27.6%. Regular spectroradiometer measurements can be beneficial in this regard to adjust the curing time and thereby calibrate the clinical curing dose. Greater penetration depth can be expected when using LCUs with greater radiant emittance and tip diameter, while the curing mode was considered ineffective on the scattering pattern.
Effective light-curing is a complicated clinical procedure in dentistry requiring many parameters. There might be some deviations in these features from the manufacturer's stated values. Clinicians should select the LCUs by considering the radiant flux, tip diameter, radiant emittance, light scattering, and penetration depth features to succeed in clinical restorative procedures.
比较高功率和低功率牙科发光二极管固化单元（LCU）以及不同输出模式下的辐射通量、辐射出射度、光散射和穿透深度。
使用实验室级分光辐射度计对10种不同的全新牙科LCU和不同输出模式进行测试，以评估辐射通量和光谱发射。利用每个固化单元/输出模式的辐射通量值以及制造商规定的尖端直径或测量的内部尖端直径，计算出两个辐射出射度值。还通过使用罗丹明B溶液收集的光束图像评估光源宽度、散射、总穿透深度（TPD）和主穿透深度（MPD）。使用Photoshop软件进行图像处理以测量距离。统计分析的显著性设定为<0.050。
除Valo X外，所有LCU测量的内部尖端直径均与规定直径不同。Valo X的Xtra Power模式辐射通量最高（2704±5 mW），其次是Valo Grand Xtra Power模式（2576±6 mW）（P<0.001）。最低辐射通量来自D Light Pro低功率模式（449±9 mW）（P<0.001）。根据制造商规定的和测量的内部尖端直径计算出的辐射出射度比规定的辐射出射度低达27.6%。观察到TPD、光源宽度和辐射出射度之间呈正相关（P<0.001）。散射与TPD（P=0.014）、辐射出射度（P=0.003）和尖端直径（P=0.007）呈负相关。
辐射出射度可能与制造商规定的值偏差高达27.6%。在这方面，定期进行分光辐射度计测量有助于调整固化时间，从而校准临床固化剂量。使用具有更大辐射出射度和尖端直径的LCU时，可预期有更大的穿透深度，而固化模式对散射模式无效。
有效的光固化是牙科中一个复杂的临床过程，需要许多参数。这些特性可能与制造商规定的值存在一些偏差。临床医生应通过考虑辐射通量、尖端直径、辐射出射度、光散射和穿透深度等特性来选择LCU，以成功进行临床修复程序。
