BackgroundThe aims of the study were measuring the light intensity of light curing units used in Qazvin’s dental offices, determining the relationship between the clinical age of these units and their light intensity, and identifying the reasons for repairing them.Material and MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, the output intensity of 95 light curing devices was evaluated using a radiometer. The average output intensity was divided up into four categories (less than 200, 200-299, 300-500, and more than 500 mW/cm2). In addition, a questionnaire was designed to obtain information mainly about the type, clinical age, and frequency of maintenance of the units and the reasons for fixing them. Data were analyzed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov, chi-squared, and t-tests (p< 0.05) on SPSS 24.ResultsA total of 95 light curing units were examined, with 61 (64.2%) of them being of the LED type and 34 (35.8%) of the QTH type. While average light intensity in LED units was significantly higher than in QTH devices, the two device types were not significantly different regarding desirable light intensity (i.e., ≥ 300 mw/cm2). A negative correlation was observed between clinical age and light intensity. In addition, bulb replacement in QTH devices was over three times as much as in LED units. Also, repairing QTHs was more than twice as much frequent as fixing LEDs. The most common reason for repair was the breakage of the tip of the device.ConclusionsThe light intensity of LED units is significantly higher than that of QTH devices, and the frequency of repairing in QTHs was significantly more than in LEDs. Furthermore, light intensity decreases with aging, and dentists should regularly monitor the conditions of light units. Key words:Light curing unit, radiometer, light intensity, dental equipment, dental offices.