Third-Generation vs. a Second-Generation LED Curing Light: Effect on Knoop Microhardness

Richard B T Price, BDS, DDS, MS, FDS RCS (Edin), PhD; Corey A Felix, BSc (Hons), MSc; Pantelis Andreou, PhD

September 2006 Issue - Expires Sunday, September 30th, 2007

Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry

Abstract

Third-generation light-emitting diode (LED) curing lights use several different types of LEDs within the light to deliver a broader spectral output compared with the narrower spectral output of second-generation curing lights. This study determined the benefits of this broader spectral output. A third-generation LED curing light was modified so that the 4 peripheral LEDs, which provide the lower wavelengths, could be turned on or off, allowing the light to be used as a third- or a second-generation LED curing light. Twelve composites of A2 and lighter shades were packed into molds 2 mm deep with an internal diameter of 12 mm, and then irradiated for 20 seconds. A laboratory-grade spectroradiometer was used to ensure that all the specimens received the same irradiance and total energy (16.82 J/cm2) from the curing light in both the second- and third-generation modes. The results showed the benefits of using a broader spectrum third-generation LED curing light. This light produced composites that were as hard as when the narrower spectrum second-generation LED curing light was used (P≤ .01). In 7 of the 12 resin composites, the top surface was harder when the third-generation LED curing light was used (P≤ .01).

You must be signed in to read the rest of this article.

Login Sign Up

Registration on CDEWorld is free. You may also login to CDEWorld with your DentalAegis.com account.

Learning Objectives:

Disclosures:

The author reports no conflicts of interest associated with this work.

Queries for the author may be directed to justin.romano@broadcastmed.com.