Effects of different infection control methods on the intensity output of LED Light-Curing Units

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of two different infection control techniques on the irradiance value output of LED curing units. MethodsTwo different infection control techniques were involved in this investigation: (1) autoclaving and (2) disinfectant with a clear barrier. A high-power LED (Elipar S10, 3M, Neuss, Germany) was used as the curing unit. Light irradiance values (mW/cm2) of each light tip were measured by a calibrated spectral device (PS-MARC [Patient Simulator-Managing Accurate Resin Curing] BlueLight Analytic Inc., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada). For each group, 5 new curing tips were involved and a total of 25 cycles were performed. For the autoclave group, each of the 5 curing tips was sterilized with an autoclave cycle (15min). In the second group, the 5 tested tips were wiped with a disinfectant solution (MinutenSpray, APMD GmbH, Munich, Germany) and then covered with a clear commercial disposable barrier (Disposa-Shield, Dentsply, USA). The statistical analysis involved using the t-test and the Tukey test. ResultsAnalysis of the data showed reductions of irradiance values in both groups compared with the baseline values. The group with autoclaved curing tips had a lower value compared with the disinfectant/barrier tips group. There were statistically significant differences between the tested groups (P<0.05). ConclusionThe quality of the tested LCU was reduced when either of the above infection control techniques was used. Clinicians are recommended to monitor their LCU by applying the same infection control methods on light tips when testing its irradiance value.