Efficiency of Radiant Power of Different Light-Curing Unit Brands With Varying Ages and Tip Conditions in Private and Governmental Dental Centers.

To correlate the radiant power (mW), radiant exitance (or tip irradiance in mW/cm2), emission spectrum (mW/cm2/nm), and beam irradiance profile of 12 light-curing units (LCUs) available in the Brazilian market with their market cost. Six LCUs that cost more than US$900 (Bluephase G4,VALO Grand, VALO Cordless, Radii Xpert, Elipar DeepCure-S, and Radii plus) and six low-cost LCUs costing less than US$500 (Radii Cal, Optilight Max, High Power LED 3M, Emitter D, Emitter C, and LED B) were examined. Radiant power (mW) and emission spectrum (mW/nm) were measured using an integrating sphere connected to a fiber-optic spectroradiometer. The internal tip diameter (mm) of each LCU was measured using a digital caliper and was used to calculate the average radiant exitance (mW/cm2). Irradiance profiles at the light tip were measured using a commercial laser beam profiler. The cost of each LCU in Brazil was correlated with internal tip diameter, radiant power, and tip irradiance. None of the low-cost LCUs were broad spectrum multiple peak LCUs. There was no correlation between the cost of the LCUs and their averaged tip irradiance; however, there was a high positive correlation between the cost of the LCUs and the radiant power and tip diameter. The VALO Grand, Elipar DeepCure-S, VALO Cordless, and Bluephase G4 all emitted a higher radiant power. They also had a significantly greater tip diameter than other LCUs. For the LCUs with a nonuniform output, some areas of the light tip delivered less than 400 mW/cm2, while other areas delivered more than 2500 mW/cm2. In general, LCUs that had a higher cost (US$971-US$1800) delivered more power (mW) and had a greater tip diameter (mm), which covered more of a tooth. In general, the low-cost LCUs (US$224-US$470) emitted a lower radiant power and had a smaller tip diameter.

The light-curing unit: An essential piece of dental equipment

This study measured the radiant power (mW), irradiance (mW/cm2) and emission spectra (mW/cm2/nm) of 22 new, or almost new, light curing units (LCUs): - Alt Lux II, BioLux Standard, Bluephase G2, Curing Light XL 3000, Demetron LC, DX Turbo LED 1200, EC450, EC500, Emitter C, Emitter D, KON-LUX, LED 3M ESPE, Led Lux II, Optilight Color, Optilight Max, Optilux 501, Poly Wireless, Radii cal, Radii plus, TL-01, VALO Cordless. These LCUs were either monowave or multiple peak light emitting diode (LED) units or quartz-tungsten-halogen LCUs used in anterior and posterior teeth. The radiant power emitted by the LCUs was measured by a laboratory grade laser power meter. The tip area (cm²) of the LCUs was measured and used to calculate the irradiance from the measured radiant power source. The MARC-Patient Simulator (MARC-PS) with a laboratory grade spectrometer (USB4000, Ocean Optics) was used to measure the irradiance and emission spectrum from each LCU three times at the sensor located on the facial of the maxillary central incisors and then separately at the occlusal of a maxillary second molar. The minimum acceptable irradiance level was set as 500 mW/cm2. Irradiance data was analyzed using two-way ANOVA and the radiant power data was analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey test (a=0.05). In general, the irradiance was reduced at the molar tooth for most LCUs. Only the Valo, Bluephase G2 and Radii Plus delivered an irradiance similar to the anterior and posterior sensors greater than 500 mW/cm2. KON-LUX, Altlux II, Biolux Standard, TL-01, Optilux 501, DX Turbo LED 1200 LCUs delivered lower irradiance values than the recommended one used in molar region, KON-LUX and Altlux II LCUs used at the maxillary incisors. Bluephase G2 and Optilight Max delivered the highest radiant power and KON-LUX, Altlux II and Biolux Standard delivered the lowest power. The emission spectrum from the various monowave LED LCUs varied greatly. The multi-peak LCUs delivered similar emission spectra to both sensors.

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the composite shade and distance from the light-curing unit (LCU) tip on the irradiance reaching the bottom of composite disks and on the depth of polymerization. Composites of three shades (opaque - OXDC, bleach - BXL, and A2) were inserted into molds with 3-mm of thickness positioned over a spectrometer and photo-activated with the LCU (Bluephase) tip placed at 0 or 1 cm from the composite surface. The mean irradiance reaching the bottom of composite was recorded during the entire photo-activation (30 s). Specimens (2 x 2 x 4 mm) were polymerized and used to map the degree of conversion achieved in different depths from irradiated surface. Specimens were sectioned into slices that were positioned over the platform of the infra-red microscope connected to the spectrometer to map the conversion. The conversion was measured in eight different depths every 500-µm. Increasing the distance of LCU tip reduced the irradiance only for A2. Interposing OXDC disks resulted in lowest values of irradiance and A2 the highest one. A tendency to decrease the conversion was observed towards the bottom of specimens for all experimental conditions, and the slope was more accentuated for OXDC. Differences among shades and distances from LCU tip were evident only beyond 1.5-2.0 mm of depth. In conclusion, both composite shade and distance from LCU tip might affect the light-transmission and depth of polymerization, while the effect of last was more pronounced.

This study examined the influence of different light-curing units (LCUs) and exposure times on the microhardness across bulk-fill resin-based composite (RBC) restorations in a molar tooth. Tip diameter, radiant power, radiant exitance, emission spectra, and light beam profile were measured on two single-emission-peak LCUs (Celalux 3 and DeepCure-S) and two multiple-peak LCUs (Bluephase 20i and Valo Grand). A mold was made using a human molar that had a 12-mm mesial-distal length, a 2.5-mm deep occlusal box, and two 4.5-mm deep proximal boxes. Two bulk-fill RBCs (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill) were photoactivated for 10 seconds and for 20 seconds, with the light guide positioned at the center of the occlusal surface. Microhardness was then measured across the transverse surface of the restorations. The light that reached the bottom of the proximal boxes was examined. Data were statistically analyzed with the Student t-test, two-way analysis of variance, and the Tukey post hoc test (α=0.05). The four LCUs were different regarding all the tested characteristics. Even when using LCUs with wide tips and a homogeneous beam profile, there were significant differences in the microhardness results obtained at the central and proximal regions of the RBCs (p<0.05). LCUs with wider tips used for 20 seconds produced higher microhardness values (p<0.05). The multiple-peak LCUs produced greater hardness values in Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill than did the single-emission-peak LCUs (Celalux 3 and DeepCure-S). Results for the light measured at the bottom of proximal boxes showed that little light reached these regions when the light tip was positioned at the center of restorations. Curing lights with wide tips, homogeneous light beam profiles, and longer exposure times are preferred when light-curing large MOD restorations. Light curing from more than one position may be required for adequate photopolymerization.

Effect of infection control barriers on the light output from a multi-peak light curing unit

The dark art of light curing in dentistry

Light output from six battery operated dental curing lights

This study measured and compared exitance irradiance and power of 4 commercial dental light-curing units (LCU) (Elipar S10, Elipar DeepCure-S, Corded VALO and Bluephase Style) using different types of radiometers. The devices used to analyze the LCU were classified as either handheld analog (Henry Schein, Spring, Demetron 100A, Demetron 100B and Demetron 200), handheld digital (Bluephase 1, Bluephase II, Coltolux, CureRite and Hilux), or laboratory instruments (Thermopile and Integrating Sphere). The laboratory instruments and the Bluephase II radiometer were also used to measure the LCU's power (mW). The LCU's were activated for 20 s (n=5). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test (a=0.05). Among the LCU, the laboratory instruments presented different irradiance values, except for Corded VALO. The Coltolux and Hilux radiometers measured greater irradiance values compared to the laboratory instruments for the four LCUs tested. Within a given LCU, handheld analog units measured lower irradiance values, compared to handheld digital and laboratory instruments, except using the Spring radiometer for the Elipar S10 LCU. None of the handheld radiometers were able to measure similar irradiance values compared to laboratory instruments, except for Elipar S10 when comparing Bluephase 1 and Thermopile. Regarding power measurement, Bluephase II always presented the lowest values compared to the laboratory instruments. These findings suggest that the handheld radiometers utilized by practitioners (analog or digital) exhibit a wide range of irradiance values and may show lower outcomes compared to laboratory based instruments.

Reporting of light irradiation conditions in 300 laboratory studies of resin-composites

The Effect of Different Light Curing Units and Tip Distances on Translucency Parameters of Bulk fill Materials

A light-curing unit (LCU) is an important factor in restorative dental treatment, and its light intensity output (LIO) must be monitored regularly by using a radiometer. Thus, this cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate and measure the LIO values produced by assessed LCUs using two brands of radiometers, relative to the number of years in dental clinical services, tip condition, and the presence of periodic maintenance. Light-curing units were collected from selected dental clinics in the Aseer region, Saudi Arabia. Then, LCU data included clinical dental age (<1 year, between 1 and 3, and >3 years). The nozzle condition was visually checked for contamination, damaged nozzles, and the presence of debris. To record LIO, two brands of digital radiometers, namely, Woodpecker and Ivoclar, were used. In addition, LIO values were categorized into three subgroups, <700, between 700 and 1000, and >1000 mW/cm², and labeled as adequate, sufficient, and both adequate and sufficient LIO, respectively. Each LCU was assessed three times at 1-minute intervals. Descriptive statistics of parameters were assessed and recorded using SPSS. One-way ANOVA, along with dependent and independent t-tests, was used to evaluate significant differences among and between groups, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. A total of 112 LCUs were surveyed. With regard to tip conditions for either Woodpecker or Ivoclar radiometers across all radiant power categories, no statistically significant differences in LIO values were found. The highest mean difference in LIO values between the two radiometers was recorded in the 700-1000 mW/cm² category. No statistically significant differences in LIO values were found across age-groups for either radiometer (all p-values > 0.05), except for the Ivoclar radiometer in the >1000 mW/cm² category, which showed a significant difference (p < 0.001). All assessed LCUs provided adequate LIO, with only a slight effect observed due to age. However, their LIO tends to decrease over time, highlighting the need for routine inspection to maintain the required output levels. Daily monitoring of the clinical performance of LCU and their LIO will result in proper composite resin restorations and prolonged clinical durability. How to cite this article: Alwadai GS, Abogazalah NN, Alamoudi NA, et al. The Performance of Light-curing Units Used in Different Clinics at Aseer Region, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-sectional Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2025;26(8):784-790.

Light energy transmission through six different makes of ceramic orthodontic brackets

Effect of light curing units on the polymerization of bulk fill resin-based composites

Characterizing the output settings of dental curing lights