Effect of Battery Discharge on the Output from Budget Light-Curing Units

Q4 Dentistry
A. Al-Zain, I. Alshehri, H.MH. Jamalellail, R. Price
{"title":"Effect of Battery Discharge on the Output from Budget Light-Curing Units","authors":"A. Al-Zain, I. Alshehri, H.MH. Jamalellail, R. Price","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1757161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Objectives The manufacturers of budget light-curing units (LCUs) often claim to provide high-quality units that are equivalent to LCUs from major manufacturers. This study investigated the effects of battery discharge on the light output from different budget LCUs compared to a major manufacturer.\n Materials and Methods Two brands of budget LCUs (LY-A180 and LED-CL) were compared to a control LCU from a major manufacturer (3M). The LCUs were fully charged, and their light outputs were measured over one battery discharge cycle using repeated 10-second exposures at a 0-mm distance.\n Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni post-hoc test.\n Results The budget LCUs delivered fluctuating light output values. In their first exposure, the budget LCUs delivered between 205 and 444 mW power, an irradiance between 533 and 1154 mW/cm2, and a radiant exposure between 5.3 and 11.5 J/cm2. As the number of exposures increased, their light output decreased between 24 and 81%, while the control LCU showed only a 4.9% decrease in power and irradiance. The light outputs from the budget LCUs were significantly less than the control LCU, and they were significantly from each other.\n Conclusion The budget LCUs tested could not maintain their power, irradiance, and radiant exposure output values as the battery discharged. This supports the recommendation that clinicians should be very cautious when using budget LCUs in their clinical practice.","PeriodicalId":37771,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of General Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of General Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1757161","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives The manufacturers of budget light-curing units (LCUs) often claim to provide high-quality units that are equivalent to LCUs from major manufacturers. This study investigated the effects of battery discharge on the light output from different budget LCUs compared to a major manufacturer. Materials and Methods Two brands of budget LCUs (LY-A180 and LED-CL) were compared to a control LCU from a major manufacturer (3M). The LCUs were fully charged, and their light outputs were measured over one battery discharge cycle using repeated 10-second exposures at a 0-mm distance. Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni post-hoc test. Results The budget LCUs delivered fluctuating light output values. In their first exposure, the budget LCUs delivered between 205 and 444 mW power, an irradiance between 533 and 1154 mW/cm2, and a radiant exposure between 5.3 and 11.5 J/cm2. As the number of exposures increased, their light output decreased between 24 and 81%, while the control LCU showed only a 4.9% decrease in power and irradiance. The light outputs from the budget LCUs were significantly less than the control LCU, and they were significantly from each other. Conclusion The budget LCUs tested could not maintain their power, irradiance, and radiant exposure output values as the battery discharged. This supports the recommendation that clinicians should be very cautious when using budget LCUs in their clinical practice.
电池放电对预算光固化装置输出的影响
目标 廉价光固化单元(LCU)的制造商经常声称提供与主要制造商的LCU相当的高质量单元。本研究调查了与主要制造商相比,不同预算LCU的电池放电对光输出的影响。材料和方法 将两个品牌的廉价LCU(LY-A180和LED-CL)与来自主要制造商(3M)的对照LCU进行比较。LCU被完全充电,并且在一个电池放电循环中使用在0mm距离处的重复10秒曝光来测量它们的光输出。统计分析 使用单向方差分析和Bonferroni事后检验对数据进行分析。后果 预算LCU提供了波动的光输出值。在第一次曝光中,预算LCU提供205至444 mW的功率,533至1154 mW/cm2的辐照度,5.3至11.5的辐射曝光 J/cm2。随着曝光次数的增加,它们的光输出下降了24%至81%,而对照LCU的功率和辐照度仅下降了4.9%。预算LCU的光输出显著低于对照LCU,并且它们之间存在显著差异。结论 测试的廉价LCU无法在电池放电时保持其功率、辐照度和辐射暴露输出值。这支持了临床医生在临床实践中使用预算LCU时应非常谨慎的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of General Dentistry
European Journal of General Dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: European Journal of General Dentistry (EJGD) is one of the leading open-access international dental journal within the field of Dentistry. The aim of EJGD is publishing novel and high-quality research papers, as well as to influence the practice of dentistry at clinician, research, industry and policy-maker level on an international basis. EJGD publishes articles on all disciplines of dentistry including the cariology, orthodontics, oral surgery, preventive dentistry, periodontology, endodontology, operative dentistry, fixed and removable prosthodontics, dental biomaterials science, long-term clinical trials including epidemiology and oral health, technology transfer of new scientific instrumentation or procedures, as well as clinically relevant oral biology and translational research.Moreover, EJGD also publish the scientific researches evaluating the use of new biomaterials, new drugs and new methods for treatment of patients with different kinds of oral and maxillofacial diseases or defects, the diagnosis of oral and maxillofacial diseases with new methods, etc. Moreover, researches on the quality of life, psychological interventions, improving disease treatment outcomes, the prevention, diagnosis and management of cancer therapeutic complications, rehabilitation, palliative and end of life care, and support teamwork for cancer care and oral health care for old patients are also welcome. EJGD publishes research articles, case reports, reviews and comparison studies evaluating materials and methods in the all fields of related to dentistry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信