Rueggeberg F A, Caughman W F
Medical College of Georgia, School of Dentistry, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Augusta 30912-1260, USA.
Oper Dent. 1998 Jul-Aug;23(4):179-84.
Recently, manufacturers introduced presterilized, single-use, plastic light-curing tips to be used either routinely or on patients with known or questionable communicable health concerns. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of these single-use tips on light transmission compared to conventional fiber-optic bundles in a variety of commercial light-curing units. Also, the effects of surface contact with the plastic tips (human tissues, reflective or opaque media, and barrier films) were evaluated. Where applicable, single-use tips from two sources (Caulk/Dentsply and Demetron) were placed in commercial curing units (Optilux 150 and 500, MAX 100, Spectrum Curing Light, and 3M XL-3000), and the intensity was compared to that of the conventional glass curing tip used with that specific curing unit. Intensity readings were also made for 6 continuous minutes using plastic tips in a high-intensity curing unit to simulate veneer bonding. If the sides of the plastic tip came in contact with the operator's fingers or the patient's tongue and/or cheek during a clinical procedure, a lowering of transmitted light intensity resulted. The glow emitted from the sides of the tip when in use may be annoying to the operator. To prevent this glare, the operator may be tempted to treat the sides of the tip by painting, applying a thin polymer barrier, abrasion, or wrapping in an opaque reflective material (aluminum foil). A significant decrease in light intensity can result if plastic curing tips contact oral tissues or bare hands. Application of thin polymer barriers was found to significantly reduce light transmission value. Also, surface modification (coating with paint or surface scratches) was found to greatly reduce light intensity levels, while wrapping the tip in aluminum foil produced a very small increase. Results indicated that transmitted light intensity with use of plastic tips was dependent upon both the brand of plastic tip tested and the different photocuring units. Either a slight increase or a slight decrease in intensity was noted. Plastic tips did not degrade in transmitted intensity when exposed to the heat produced during a simulated veneering scenario. In summary, use of plastic, single-use light-curing tips can provide adequate intensity for photoactivated restorative techniques; however, the clinician must be aware of specific, clinically relevant limitations with their use. Clinicians must also note that these tips are not designed for re-use.
最近，制造商推出了预消毒的一次性塑料光固化头，可常规使用，也可用于有已知或可疑传染性健康问题的患者。本研究的目的是在各种商用光固化设备中，研究这些一次性光固化头与传统光纤束相比对光传输的影响。此外，还评估了塑料光固化头与人体组织、反射或不透明介质以及阻隔膜表面接触的影响。在适用的情况下，将来自两个厂家（Caulk/Dentsply和Demetron）的一次性光固化头放入商用固化设备（Optilux 150和500、MAX 100、Spectrum Curing Light和3M XL - 3000）中，并将其强度与该特定固化设备使用的传统玻璃固化头的强度进行比较。还使用塑料光固化头在高强度固化设备中连续6分钟进行强度读数，以模拟贴面粘结。如果在临床操作过程中塑料光固化头的侧面接触到操作者的手指或患者的舌头和/或脸颊，透射光强度就会降低。使用时光固化头侧面发出的光可能会让操作者感到烦恼。为了防止这种眩光，操作者可能会试图通过涂漆、涂一层薄聚合物阻隔层、打磨或用不透明反射材料（铝箔）包裹来处理光固化头的侧面。如果塑料固化头接触口腔组织或裸露的手，光强度会显著降低。发现涂覆薄聚合物阻隔层会显著降低光传输值。此外，发现表面改性（涂漆或表面划痕）会大大降低光强度水平，而用铝箔包裹光固化头只会使光强度有非常小的增加。结果表明，使用塑料光固化头时的透射光强度取决于所测试的塑料光固化头的品牌和不同的光固化设备。强度有轻微增加或轻微降低。在模拟贴面操作过程中产生的热量作用下，塑料光固化头的透射强度不会降低。总之，使用一次性塑料光固化头可为光活化修复技术提供足够的强度；然而，临床医生必须意识到其使用中特定的、与临床相关的局限性。临床医生还必须注意，这些光固化头并非设计用于重复使用。
