Plasma Arc Light Research Articles

Plasma arc versus halogen light curing of orthodontic brackets: a 12-month clinical study of bond failures

The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of brackets cured with 2 different light-curing units (conventional halogen light and plasma arc light); 83 patients treated with fixed appliances were included in the study. With the “split-mouth” design, each patient's mouth was divided into 4 quadrants. In 42 randomly selected patients, the maxillary left and mandibular right quadrants were cured with the halogen light, and the remaining quadrants were cured with the plasma arc light. In the other 41 patients, the quadrants were inverted. A total of 1434 stainless steel brackets were examined: 717 were cured with a conventional halogen light for 20 seconds; the remaining 717 were cured with the plasma arc light for 5 seconds. The number, cause, and date of bracket failures were recorded for each light-curing unit over 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher exact test, the Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, and the log-rank test. No statistically significant differences were found between the total bond failure rates of the brackets cured with the halogen light and those cured with the plasma arc light. Neither were significant differences found when the clinical performances of the maxillary versus mandibular arches or the anterior versus posterior segments were compared. These findings demonstrate that plasma arc lights are an advantageous alternative to conventional light curing, because they significantly reduce the curing time of orthodontic brackets without affecting the bond failure rate.

The efficiency of different light sources to polymerize composite beneath a simulated ceramic restoration

Statement of problem Inadequate polymerization diminishes the physical properties of composite and compromises material strength. Newly developed light-polymerizing units (plasma arc and high intensity halogen) operate at relatively high intensity and are purported to provide optimum properties to composites in a shorter time. Purpose The aim of this in vitro study was to examine the polymerization efficacy of 3 different polymerization units through a simulated ceramic restoration by determining degree of monomer conversion of a composite luting material. Material and methods A conventional halogen light, a plasma arc light, and a high-intensity halogen light were used to polymerize a composite (Variolink II) with or without catalyst. A pressable ceramic block (5 mm in diameter, 2 mm in height) was used as an interface between the polymerizing light tip and composite. The composite/veneer combination was exposed to 2 different polymerization time protocols for each polymerization unit: (1) 20 or 40 seconds for conventional halogen light, (2) 3 or 6 seconds for plasma arc light, and (3) 10 or 20 seconds (under ramp mode) for the high-intensity halogen light. Using different light units, 120 composite specimens were evaluated (n=5). Fourier transformation infrared spectroscopy was used to determine the level of light polymerization of the resin through the ceramic material with each of the light sources immediately after polymerization or after 24 hours. Degree of conversion was calculated as a percentage of experimentally polymerized versus maximally polymerized composite. The data were analyzed by 4-factor analysis of variance (α=.05). Independent t tests (α=.05) were used to detect differences between groups defined by the specific interacting variables. Results Degree of conversion values varied with the light source ( P<.05), polymerization type ( P<.05), testing time ( P<.01), and exposure to each light source ( P<.01). Significant interactions were present between light source and polymerization type ( P=.00), light source and testing time ( P=.007), and polymerization type and testing time ( P=.004). The degree of conversion values were significantly higher in dual-polymerized specimens after 24 hours ( P<.01), but there were no significant differences in light-polymerized specimens after 24 hours. The degree of conversion values achieved were significantly lower ( P<.05) when specimens were dual polymerized by conventional halogen light and measured immediately (31.59 ± 7.76). The degree of conversion values achieved were significantly ( P<.05) higher with dual polymerization by high-intensity halogen measured after 24 hours (65.06 ± 8.14). There were no other significant differences among groups. Conclusion The highest degree of conversion values of composite were achieved with polymerization by high-intensity halogen. The plasma arc light achieved similar polymerization of composite through ceramic material in a markedly shorter period than conventional halogen light.

The efficiency of different light sources to polymerize resin cement beneath porcelain laminate veneers.

Plasma arc light units for curing resin composites have been introduced with the claim of relatively short curing times. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of two different light sources to polymerize dual curing resin cement beneath porcelain laminate veneers. Twenty extracted healthy human maxillary centrals were used. Teeth were sectioned 2 mm below the cemento-enamel junction and crown parts were embedded into self-cure acrylic resin, labial surface facing up. Cavity preparation was carried out on labial surfaces. These teeth were divided into two groups of 10 each. The resin cement/veneer combination was exposed to two different photo polymerization units. A conventional halogen light (Hilux 350, Express Dental Products) and a plasma arc light (Power PAC, ADT) were used to polymerize resin cement. Ten specimens were polymerized conventionally (40 s) and the other specimens by plasma arc curing (PAC) (6 s). Two samples from each tooth measuring 1.2 x 1.2 x 5 mm were prepared. These sections were subjected to microshear testing and failure values were recorded. Statistically significant differences were found between the bond strength of veneers exposed to conventional light and PAC unit (P < 0.001). Samples polymerized with halogen light showed better bond strength. The results of this study suggest that the curing efficiency of PAC through ceramic was lower compared with conventional polymerization for the exposure durations tested in this study.

Plasma arc curing of ceramic brackets: an evaluation of shear bond strength and debonding characteristics

The aim of this in vitro investigation was to evaluate bond strength and debonding characteristics when a xenon plasma arc curing light is used to bond polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets. Brackets were bonded to 240 extracted bovine mandibular incisors with a composite adhesive. Curing intervals of 1, 3, and 6 seconds were chosen for curing with the plasma arc light, and the control group was cured at 10 seconds per bracket with a conventional halogen light. Debonding was performed on a universal testing machine and according to the bracket manufacturers’ recommendations. Both the polycrystalline and the monocrystalline brackets consistently debonded at the bracket-adhesive interface, regardless of debonding method, curing interval, or curing light. No enamel fractures were observed after debonding. Bracket fractures were rare and did not affect debonding. Bond strength was significantly higher for the monocrystalline brackets ( P < .0001): mean shear bond strength ranged between 9.68 ± 2.17 MPa (plasma arc curing light, 1 sec curing interval) and 10.73 ± 3.22 MPa (halogen light, 10 sec curing interval) for the polycrystalline brackets and between 19.85 ± 2.97 MPa (plasma arc curing light, 1 sec curing interval) and 22.94 ± 3.20 MPa (plasma arc curing light, 3 sec curing interval) for the monocrystalline brackets. Significant differences were also found for the curing methods used ( P = .047). A curing interval of 3 seconds with the plasma arc curing light is recommended for both polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets.

Depth of cure and microleakage with high-intensity and ramped resin-based composite curing lights

The authors conducted a study to determine whether high-intensity curing lights in high and ramped intensity modes affect microleakage of resin-based composite restorations and whether different types of resin-based composites meet American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association Specification no. 27 (1993): 7.7 for depth of cure when polymerized using these lights. The authors compared five high-intensity lights, three plasma arc lights and two quartz-tungsten-halogen lights in their regular and ramped intensity modes with a quartz-tungsten-halogen 40-second light. The parameters tested were microleakage one month after bonding and curing depth for different resin-based composite types. The authors measured curing depth using a scratch test. Light curing with Optilux 501 (Kerr/Demetron, Orange, Calif.) for 10 seconds and ADT Power PAC (American Dental Technologies, Corpus Christi, Texas) for 10 seconds resulted in higher microleakage values than light curing with other lights (P < .05). The microhybrid resin-based composite was the only material that met the specification when light cured with all of the lights tested. The flowable resin-based composite did not meet the specification when light cured with all lights tested. Microhybrid resin-based composite had the greatest depth of cure, and flowable resin-based composite had the least depth of cure. Microhybrid resin-based composite microleakage is affected by some light-curing modes. Different categories of resin-based composites are cured to different depths using high-intensity lights. Light curing with some high-intensity lights compared with halogen lights may result in higher microleakage values. Use caution when light curing flowable resin-based composite with the high-intensity lights. Place increments less than 2 millimeters in depth when using this material.

Cuspal movement and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with a packable composite cured in bulk or in increments

Introduction. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of two novel curing systems (a plasma arc light, and a ‘turbo-boosted’ conventional curing light) on cuspal movement and gingival microleakage of ‘packable’ resin-based composite (RBC) restorations placed in extracted maxillary premolar teeth. Materials and methods. Forty sound extracted upper premolar teeth were subjected to standardised preparation of a large mesio-occlusal-distal cavity before restoration with a RBC. Four curing regimens were used. Either the RBC was placed in bulk and light-cured in one increment using (a) the plasma arc light; (b) the ‘turbo-boosted’ curing light, or the RBC was placed in eight increments using (c) the plasma arc light; (d) the ‘turbo-boosted’ curing light. A deflection measuring gauge allowed a measurement of cuspal deflection at each stage of polymerisation. Restored teeth were thermocycled before immersion in a 0.2% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. After sagittal sectioning of the restored teeth in a mesio-distal plane, the sectioned restorations were examined to assess cervical microleakage. Results. Cuspal deflection measurements were significantly increased when the ‘turbo-boosted’ halogen curing light was compared with the plasma arc light. Total mean cuspal deflection measurements obtained with incremental cure were significantly increased compared with bulk cure for both light sources. Gingival microleakage for bulk restored teeth was significantly increased compared with teeth restored incrementally. Incremental restoration with the plasma arc light had significantly increased gingival microleakage compared with the ‘turbo-boosted’ halogen curing light. Conclusions. The packable composite tested could not be cured adequately to a depth of 5 mm with the plasma arc light within the specified irradiation time. Under the test conditions of the current investigation, bulk curing only appeared to be practical with the high intensity halogen light (40 s activation). Incremental build-up and polymerisation optimised marginal seal for the high intensity halogen light but led to greater cuspal deflection.

Effects of fast halogen and plasma arc curing lights on the surface hardness of orthodontic adhesives for lingual retainers.

The aims of this study were to (1) identify the optimum cure times of 2 different lingual retainer adhesives with a conventional halogen, a fast halogen, and a plasma arc light by measuring Vickers surface hardness, and (2) determine whether different lights produce similar surface hardness values for the same adhesive resin material. The investigated plasma arc curing unit was the PowerPac (American Dental Technologies, Corpus Christi, Tex), and the fast halogen unit was the Optilux 501 (Kerr, Orange, Calif). A conventional curing unit, the Ortholux XT (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, Minn) was used as the control. Two orthodontic lingual retainer adhesives were used: Transbond Lingual Retainer (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and Light Cure Retainer (Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, Ill). Concise (3M Dental Products) and diluted Concise were used as controls. Transbond Lingual Retainer was polymerized by the PowerPac light in 6 seconds, by the Optilux in 10 seconds, and by the conventional halogen light in 20 seconds. The minimum curing times for Light Cure Retainer adhesive were 15 seconds for PowerPac, 10 seconds for Optilux, and 40 seconds for conventional halogen. Surface hardness values for each resin did not differ significantly with different curing units. However, different adhesives demonstrated significantly different surface hardness values. Final Vickers surface hardness values (averaged across curing units) of Transbond Lingual Retainer, Concise, diluted Concise, and Light Cure Retainer were 62.8, 52.4, 46.0, and 40.4, respectively. Plasma arc or fast halogen units polymerize resin composite adhesive in much shorter times than do conventional curing units, without a significant loss in surface hardness. Therefore, these units are suggested for clinical use to save chairside time.

Effects of fast halogen and plasma arc curing lights on the surface hardness of orthodontic adhesives for lingual retainers

The aims of this study were to (1) identify the optimum cure times of 2 different lingual retainer adhesives with a conventional halogen, a fast halogen, and a plasma arc light by measuring Vickers surface hardness, and (2) determine whether different lights produce similar surface hardness values for the same adhesive resin material. The investigated plasma arc curing unit was the PowerPac (American Dental Technologies, Corpus Christi, Tex), and the fast halogen unit was the Optilux 501 (Kerr, Orange, Calif). A conventional curing unit, the Ortholux XT (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, Minn) was used as the control. Two orthodontic lingual retainer adhesives were used: Transbond Lingual Retainer (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and Light Cure Retainer (Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, Ill). Concise (3M Dental Products) and diluted Concise were used as controls. Transbond Lingual Retainer was polymerized by the PowerPac light in 6 seconds, by the Optilux in 10 seconds, and by the conventional halogen light in 20 seconds. The minimum curing times for Light Cure Retainer adhesive were 15 seconds for PowerPac, 10 seconds for Optilux, and 40 seconds for conventional halogen. Surface hardness values for each resin did not differ significantly with different curing units. However, different adhesives demonstrated significantly different surface hardness values. Final Vickers surface hardness values (averaged across curing units) of Transbond Lingual Retainer, Concise, diluted Concise, and Light Cure Retainer were 62.8, 52.4, 46.0, and 40.4, respectively. Plasma arc or fast halogen units polymerize resin composite adhesive in much shorter times than do conventional curing units, without a significant loss in surface hardness. Therefore, these units are suggested for clinical use to save chairside time.

Effects of high-speed curing devices on shear bond strength and microleakage of orthodontic brackets

This study evaluated the shear-peel bond strength and mode of bond failure of 3 curing devices (plasma arc light, argon laser, and conventional halogen light) and 2 orthodontic bracket adhesives with different filler contents (Transbond XT and Adhesive Precoated [APC]). Observations of microleakage were also reported. Ninety human adolescent premolars were randomly divided into 6 groups, and standardized brackets were bonded according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. The plasma arc light produced significantly ( P = .006) higher bond strength than did the halogen light or the argon laser when Transbond was used. When APC was used, the plasma arc light and the halogen light produced similar results, and they both produced significantly ( P = .015) higher bond strengths than did the argon laser. Overall, the APC showed substantially less variation in bond strength than did the Transbond. Although all curing methods showed significant microleakage ( P < .001), differences among the 3 curing lights occurred only when APC was used. Microscopic evaluations demonstrated that 95% of the specimens failed for adhesion at the bracket or tooth surface; the argon laser produced the highest adhesive remnant index scores. On the basis of bond strength and microleakage results, the plasma arc light was comparable with or superior to the other curing devices, depending on the adhesive used.

Porcelain Veneer Bonding to Dentin and the Curing Performance of Plasma-arc Light with Respect to Porcelain Thickness

Plasma and halogen lamp units were used to photo-cure a composite resin for porcelain bonding. Mean shear bond strengths to dentin after light curing through porcelain of 1 and 2 mm thickness ranged from 20 to 27 MPa before and after thermocycling, indicating no significant effects due to porcelain thickness, curing method, or thermocycling, except for plasma curing for 3 s through porcelain of 2 mm thickness that overcame thermocycling. The mean bond strength in this group was significantly lower than both that before thermocycling and that of the porcelain of 1 mm thickness. Knoop hardness values for plasma curing for 3 s through porcelain of 2 mm thickness were significantly lower than the others. These results suggest that plasma light for 3 s is not sufficient to cure composite resin cement through porcelain of 2 mm thickness.

Plasma arc curing lights for orthodontic bonding

Xenon plasma arc lights were introduced recently for light-cured orthodontic bonding. Compared with a conventional tungsten-quartz-halogen light source, these high-intensity lights promise a dramatic reduction in curing time. The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to evaluate bond strength with 2 commercially available plasma arc lights and reduced curing intervals. Brackets were bonded to 150 extracted human teeth (75 premolars, 75 incisors) with a composite adhesive. Intervals of 2 and 6 seconds were used for curing with the plasma arc lights; a control group was bonded with a halogen light source and 20 seconds of light exposure per bracket. Bond strength testing was performed with a universal testing machine. A substantial reduction in curing time was possible with both plasma arc units. Significantly lower bond strength values were found for premolar brackets bonded with plasma arc curing lights and the shortest curing interval of 2 seconds compared with the longer curing time of 6 seconds or the standard curing time with the halogen light. Although 2 seconds of curing might be adequate to achieve acceptable bond strength values for the incisors, the Weibull analysis indicated a higher probability of bond failure for premolar brackets in particular. Six seconds of curing time is recommended for bonding stainless steel brackets with xenon plasma arc light sources. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:643-8)

Comparative bond strength of brackets cured using a pulsed xenon curing light with 2 different light-guide sizes

Light curing of composite resin material beneath orthodontic brackets is common in clinical orthodontics. Experiences with composite resins and high-intensity lights indicate some advantages to staged curing of the composite. In this study, the shear/peel bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to bovine enamel and cured with a pulsed xenon plasma arc light was compared with that of bonds cured with a conventional tungsten-quartz-halogen light and a nonpulsed xenon plasma arc light. The pulsed light provided less light energy than the nonpulsed lights. A small and a larger light-guide tip were used with the pulsed xenon plasma arc light. Three different orthodontic composite resin adhesives were tested with each light. The pulsed xenon plasma arc light resulted in either the same or decreased shear/peel bond strength when compared with the nonpulsed lights. There appeared to be no advantage to the use of a pulsed xenon plasma arc light in bonding orthodontic brackets. Results from using either a small or a large light-guide tip varied with the adhesive tested. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:242-50)

Comparison of linear polymerization shrinkage in composites and compomer polymerized by plasma arc or conventional visible light curing

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of plasma arc curing (PAC) unit for composite and compomer curing. To compare its effectiveness with conventional quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) light curing unit, the polymerization shrinkage rates and amounts of three composites (Z100, Z250, Synergy Duo Shade) and one compomer, that had been light cured by PAC unit or QTH unit, was compared using a custome made linometer. The measurement of polymerization shrinkage was performed after polymerization with either QTH unit or PAC unit. In case of curing with the PAC unit, the composite was light cured with Apollo 95E for 6s, the power density of which was recorded as 1350 mW/cm 2 by Coltolux Light Meter. For light curing with QTH unit, the composite was light cured for 30s with the XL2500, the power density of which was recorded as 800 mW/cm2 by Coltolux Light Meter. The amount of linear polymerization shrinkage was recorded in the computer every 0.5s for 60s. Ten measurements were made for each material. The amount of linear polymerization shrinkage for each material in 10s and 60s which were cured with PAC or QTH unit were compared with t test. The amount of polymerization shrinkage in the tested materials were compared with 1way ANOVA with Duncan’ s multiple range test. As for the amounts of polymerization shrinkage in 60s, there was no difference between PAC unit and QTH unit in Z250 and Synergy Duo Shade. In Z100 and Dyract AP, it was lower when it was cured with PAC unit than when it was cured with QTH unit (p<0.05). As for the amounts of polymerization shrinkage in 10s, there was no difference between PAC unit and QTH unit in Z100 and Dyract AP. The amounts of polymerization shrinkage was significantly higher when it was cured with PAC unit in Z250 and Synergy Duo Shade (p<0.05). The amounts of polymerization shrinkage in the tested materials when they were cured with QTH unit were Z250 (6.6um) < Z100 (9.3um), Dyract AP (9.7um) < Synergy Duo Shade (11.2um) (p<0.05). The amount of polymerization shrinkage when the materials were cured with PAC unit were Dyract AP (5.6um) < Z100 (8.1um), Z250(7.0um)<Synergy Duo Shade (11.2um) (p<0.05).

Effect of light source and shade on depth of cure of composites

Purpose of this research is estimating polymerization depth of different source of light. XL 3000 for halo-gen light, Apollo 95E for plasma arc light and Easy cure for LED light source were used in this study. Different shade (B1 & A3) resin composites (Esthet-X, Dentsply, U.S.A.) were used to measure depth of cure. 1, 2, and 3 mm thick samples were light cured for three seconds, six seconds or 10 seconds with Apollo 95E and they were light cured with XL-3000 and Easy cure for 10 seconds, 20 seconds, or 40 seconds. Vicker's hardness test carried out after store samples for 24 hours in distilled water. Results were as following. 1. Curing time increases from al1 source of lights, ouiing depth increased(p0.05). 4. Groups that do polymerization using Plasma arc and LED source of light did not show Vicker's hardness difference according to color at surface and 1mm depth(p>0.05), but showed difference according to color at 2mm and 3mm depth(p

Effect of curing method and curing time on the microhardness and wear of pit and fissure sealants

Objective: To evaluate the effects of a light source, polymerization time and storage time on the microhardness and wear of pit and fissure sealants. Methods: Five commercial pit and fissure sealants (Fissurit F [FF], Teethmate F1 [TF], Apollo Seal [AS], Concise [CC], and Ultraseal XT Plus [US]) were used. Specimens were cured with a conventional visible light curing unit (Curing Light XL 3000) for 10, 20, 30, 40 s or with a plasma arc light curing unit (Apollo 95E) for 3, 6, 9, 12 s. The specimens were kept dry in light-shielded bottles at 37°C for 1 week, then half of them were thermocycled. The rest of them were stored in distilled water in light-shielded bottles for another 30 days, which were kept in an incubator at 37°C, followed by thermocycling. Microhardness and wear of the specimens were measured. Results: Similar degree of microhardness was achieved with the shorter curing time with the plasma arc light curing unit as with the conventional visible light-curing unit. With conventional visible light curing, the microhardness of the top surface was higher than that of the bottom surface ( P<0.05). With plasma arc light curing, the microhardness of the top surface was higher than that of the bottom surface for AS and CC, but for FF, TF and US, the microhardness of the top surface was lower than that of the bottom surface, except in the 3-s curing of US. For FF, AS, CC and US, wear in the 6 s curing with plasma arc light was similar to or less than that of the 30 s curing with conventional visible light, but for TF, wear of the 9 s curing with plasma arc light was similar to that of the 20 s curing with conventional visible light. After storage in distilled water for 30 days followed by thermocycling, there was a tendency towards a decrease in microhardness and an increase in wear. There was a significant negative correlation between microhardness and wear ( P<0.01). Significance: The tested curing methods differed significantly in their curing capacity. This study suggested that a plasma arc light curing unit needs shorter curing time than a visible light curing unit to achieve similar mechanical properties of the pit and fissure sealants tested.

Effect of light-enhanced bleaching on in vitro surface and intrapulpal temperature rise.

This study investigated the effect of the presence, absence, and aging of a heat-enhancing compound (colorant) added to bleaching gel on the temperature rise of the gel itself, as well as the temperature rise within the pulp chamber, when a tooth was exposed to a variety of light-curing units in vitro. An extracted human upper central incisor was fitted with thermocouples placed in the pulp chamber as well as on the facial tooth surface. A temperature-controlled simulated intrapulpal fluid flow was provided to the tooth, and bleaching agent (Opalesence XTRA, Ultradent) containing heat-enhancing colorant, aged colorant, or no colorant was applied to the facial surface. The tooth and light-curing unit were placed in a thermostatically controlled oven at 37 degrees C, and real-time gel and intrapulpal temperature values were recorded digitally. Light-curing units used were a plasma arc light (PAC) (PowerPac, ADT), a conventional quartz tungsten halogen source (QTH) (Optilux 501, Demetron/Kerr), the QTH light used in high-power (bleaching) mode, and an argon ion laser (AccuCure 3000, LaserMed). An exposure scenario simulating light-enhanced bleaching of 10 upper teeth was developed. Temperature rise over the pre-exposure, baseline value associated with the last light exposure in the bleaching sequence was calculated for each curing and bleaching combination. Five replications for each test condition were made. Temperature rise values were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA) at a preset alpha of 0.05. When fresh colorant-containing bleach was used, the PAC light increased bleach temperature 39.3 degrees C above baseline. With no added colorant, temperature rise was 37.1 degrees C. The QTH light in bleach mode resulted in gel temperature 24.8 degrees C above baseline, whereas the temperature increase was only 11.5 degrees C when no colorant was used. Conventional QTH light use increased fresh bleach temperature by 17.7 degrees C, whereas an increase of only 11.1 degrees C was measured without colorant. The argon ion laser produced equivalent temperature rise regardless of the presence or freshness of the colorant, approximately 9.4 degrees C. Intrapulpal temperatures were all significantly lower than those recorded in the bleaching gel and ranged from 5 degrees to 8 degrees C. As a rule, the presence of fresh heat-enhancing colorant in the bleaching gel resulted in a significant intrapulpal temperature increase (approximately 1 degrees C) over that reached using other lights. The PAC and the QTH light used in bleach mode induced greater intrapulpal temperature rise than the laser. Freshness of bleaching agent incorporating light-activated, heat-enhancing colorant influences temperature rise of bleaching gel and also may increase intrapulpal temperature values. Use of intense lights does elevate bleach temperature and also results in increased intrapulpal temperature that may further impact on patient sensitivity and pulpal health resulting from this treatment.

Effect of light source and time on the polymerization of resin cement through ceramic veneers.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of 3 different light sources to polymerize a light curing resin cement beneath 3 types of porcelain veneer materials. A conventional halogen light, a plasma arc light, and a high intensity halogen light were used to polymerize resin cement (Variolink II; Ivoclar North America Inc, Amherst, NY) through disks of veneer materials. Equal diameter and thickness disks of feldspathic porcelain (Ceramco II; Ceramco Inc, Burlington, NJ), pressable ceramic (IPS Empress; Ivoclar North America Inc), and aluminous porcelain (Vitadur Alpha; Vident Inc, Brea, CA) were used as an interface between the curing light tips and the light polymerized resin cement. The resin cement/veneer combinations were exposed to 4 different photopolymerization time protocols of 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 15 seconds, and 20 seconds for high intensity light units (Apollo 95E [Dental Medical Diagnostic Systems Inc, Westlake Village, CA] and Kreativ 2000 [Kreativ Inc, San Diego, CA]), and 20 seconds, 40 seconds, 60 seconds, and 80 seconds for conventional halogen light (Optilux; Demetron Research Inc, Danbury, CT). A surface hardness test (Knoop indenter) was used to determine the level of photopolymerization of the resin through the ceramic materials with each of the light sources. The data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and a post-hoc Scheffe test (p < .05). The data indicates that the Variolink II Knoop Hardness Number values vary with the light source, the veneer material, and the polymerization time. For a given light and veneer material, Knoop Hardness Number increases with longer polymerization times. The Kreativ light showed statistically significant differences (p < .05) between all test polymerization times. Use of this light required a polymerization time of greater than 20 seconds to reach maximum resin cement hardness. For samples polymerized with the Apollo light, there were statistically significant (p < .05) differences in surface hardness between samples polymerized at all times, except for the 15-second and 20-second times. Samples polymerized with the halogen light showed no statistically significant (p < .05) differences in hardness between polymerization times of 60 seconds and 80 seconds. High intensity curing lights achieve adequate polymerization of resin cements through veneers in a markedly shorter time period than the conventional halogen light. However, the data in this report indicate that a minimum exposure time of 15 seconds with the Kreativ light and 10 seconds with the Apollo 95E light should be used to polymerize the Variolink II resin, regardless of the composition of the veneer. Conventional halogen lights required a correspondingly greater polymerization time of 60 seconds.

Orthodontic bracket bonding with a plasma-arc light and resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement

Developments in light-curing technology have led to the introduction of a plasma-arc light-curing unit that delivers high-intensity output for faster curing. The purposes of this study were to determine the shear bond strengths of light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement cured with a plasma-arc light-curing unit and to evaluate the durability of the resultant bond strength with thermal cycling. Comparisons were made between light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement and light-cured composite resin. Two light-curing units were used in this study: a plasma-arc light-curing unit and a conventional light-curing unit. The mean shear bond strengths of light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement with the plasma-arc and the conventional light-curing units were 20.3 MPa and 26.0 MPa, respectively. An analysis of variance showed no statistically significant differences between the plasma-arc and the conventional light-curing units. Light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement and light-cured composite resin demonstrated similar bond strengths and exhibited no statistical differences. There was no statistical difference in bond strength between the teeth that were thermal cycled and those that were not. Failure sites for the brackets bonded with light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement appeared to be predominantly at the bracket-adhesive interface. The SDs of light-cured composite resin were high for both light-curing units. Whereas the coefficients of variation for light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement ranged from 20% to 30%, those of light-cured composite resin ranged from 40% to 60%. The bond strength of light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement cured with either a conventional light-curing unit or a plasma-arc light-curing unit surpassed the clinically required threshold. The plasma-arc light-curing unit may be an advantageous alternative to the conventional light-curing unit for orthodontic bracket bonding with both light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement and light-cured composite resin. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:58-63)

Rapid curing of bonding composite with a xenon plasma arc light

The use of light-cured orthodontic adhesives is an increasingly popular method for the bonding of orthodontic brackets. However, one of the disadvantages of light-cured adhesives is their long curing times. The xenon plasma arc curing light is purported to dramatically reduce the required curing time. The purpose of this study was to test the efficiency of a xenon plasma arc light versus a conventional tungsten-quartz halogen light in producing effective bond strengths for orthodontic brackets. Standardized brackets were bonded to bovine enamel with 3 different orthodontic bonding materials. The bonding materials were exposed to the tungsten-quartz halogen light for 40 seconds and to the xenon light for 3, 6, and 9 seconds. Bond strength was tested 30 minutes and 24 hours after light-curing. The results showed that bond strength with the application of the xenon light was greater with longer exposures. There were no statistically significant differences between the bond strengths of the brackets exposed to the tungsten-quartz halogen light for 40 seconds and those exposed to the xenon light for 3, 6, or 9 seconds. However, xenon light exposures of 6 or 9 seconds were required to create bond strengths equal to those produced by the tungsten-quartz halogen light. The xenon light produced equivalent bond strengths at very short light exposures. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119:610-6)

Elution of TEGDMA and BisGMA from a resin and a resin composite cured with halogen or plasma light

Plasma arc light units for curing resin composites have been introduced with the claim of relatively short curing times. The purpose of the present study was to measure and compare elution of monomers from an experimental BisGMA-TEGDMA resin and a commercial resin composite when cured with a halogen unit and when cured with a plasma arc unit. Specimens of the materials were immersed in methanol, and the amounts of monomers released with time were analyzed by HPLC. By use of Fick's laws of diffusion, the amount of eluted monomers from the specimen at infinity was estimated. The elution from resin specimens and from resin composite specimens cured with the plasma arc light unit was 7 and 4 times higher, respectively, compared to the elution from specimens cured with the halogen unit. It was concluded that the plasma arc light curing unit did not provide optimal cure when used as recommended by the manufacturer.