SUMMARY
Objective:
To evaluate the influence of battery level on power (mW), emission spectrum (mW/cm2/ nm), and light distribution on the active tip (mW/ cm2) of certified (FDA/ANVISA) and low-cost uncertified light-curing units (LCUs) purchased through e-commerce.
Methods:
Seven LCUs, three certified: VALO Grand (Ultradent); Radii Xpert (SDI); and LED.B (Woodpecker); and four uncertified: 1 Sec; BS 300; LED curing light; and VAFU (VRN, AZDENT), were used. The LCUs were evaluated by calculating the power (mW) after each sequential five exposure cycles of 20 seconds and the emission spectrum (mW/cm2/nm) in the initial and final cycles, using an integrating sphere during three battery charging cycles. Beam profiling was used to check the light distribution on the LCU tip after every 50 exposure cycles until the battery fully discharged. Data were analyzed by linear regression between power and the number of exposure times (R2).
Results:
The certified LCUs VALO Grand (R2=0.005), LED.B (R2=0.02), and Radii Xpert (R2=0.09) and the uncertified LCU VAFU (R2=0.002) had no significant power reduction during the three battery charging cycles. The uncertified LCUs BS 300 (R2=0.87), 1 Sec (R2=0.60), and LED curing light (R2=0.83) showed significant power reduction, decreasing the emission spectrum (mW/cm2/nm) at the end of the battery charging cycle. The light distribution on the active tip across the level battery was modified significantly with successive exposure times.
Conclusions:
The certified LCUs (VALO Grand, Radii Xpert, and LED.B) and uncertified LCU (VAFU), maintained power, emission spectrum, and light distributions during the tested battery life cycles. Low-cost certified LCU LED.B exhibited inhomogeneous light concentrated at the center of the tip. Low-cost uncertified LCUs—BS 300, 1 Sec, and LED curing light—had significant power reductions during the battery cycles and increased inhomogeneous light distribution along the successive exposure times.