Performance of Multiple Light-curing Units used by Dental Students

Al-Zain, Afnan O.; Al-Ghamdi, Ziyad A.; Basahal, Mahfouz M.; Al-Bukhary, Rozana M.; Münchow, Eliseu Aldrighi

doi:10.2174/1874210602014010671

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8,15,16 Several cross-sectional studies have revealed significant knowledge and practice gaps among dental clinicians, interns, and students. [17][18][19][20][21][22][23] These findings have highlighted critical areas for improvement, emphasizing the importance of patient safety. Dental assistants (DAs) are integral members of dental practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shedding light on the problem: Proficiency and maintenance practices of light‐curing units among dental assistants

Ismail,

Al‐Zain,

Alghaith

et al. 2023

J Esthet Restor Dent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundProper light curing is crucial for the success of restorative dentistry and to bond brackets to teeth, yet the responsibility is often delegated to dental assistants (DAs). This study assessed the proficiency and maintenance protocols of DAs when using light‐curing units (LCUs) in Saudi Arabia.MethodsSelf‐administered questionnaires were distributed to practicing DAs. The questionnaire contained sections on knowledge, adherence to best practices, and how to maintain the LCU. Demographic data were collected as well. Descriptive statistics and linear regressions at a significance level of (p = 0.05) were conducted to identify any relationships that influenced the DAs' LCU knowledge, practice, and maintenance protocols.ResultsAmong the surveyed DAs, 66% were responsible for using the LCU during treatment, 16% used their fingers for support when light curing, 50% held the LCU tip 1–2 mm from the restoration during curing, and 51% did not have a specific maintenance protocol at their workplace. 70% did not know the output from the LCU, and their educational background correlated with knowledge (b = −14.42, p < 0.001). The type of institution type correlated with adherence to best practices (b = −13.65, p = 0.011), and level of knowledge and adherence to maintenance protocols showed a direct correlation (b = 0.002, p = 0.041).ConclusionsThe findings revealed that a significant percentage of the DAs who replied had insufficient knowledge and did not follow the best practices and maintenance protocols for the LCUs they were using. Their educational background and workplace factors influenced this knowledge gap, while the absence of a maintenance protocol and suboptimal practices were associated with the type of institution.Clinical SignificanceTo maintain the best practice, clinicians and institutions should improve the education and training of DAs. Otherwise, inadequate light curing by the DAs may jeopardize the long‐term success of many dental procedures.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shedding light on the problem: Proficiency and maintenance practices of light‐curing units among dental assistants

Ismail,

Al‐Zain,

Alghaith

et al. 2023

J Esthet Restor Dent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, different units from the same manufacturer might behave differently. 16 Since research is lacking in this area, more research is warranted concerning budget LCUs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Al-Zain

Alshehri

Jamalellail

et al. 2022

European Journal of General Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Performance of Multiple Light-curing Units used by Dental Students

Cited by 2 publications

References 18 publications

Shedding light on the problem: Proficiency and maintenance practices of light‐curing units among dental assistants

Shedding light on the problem: Proficiency and maintenance practices of light‐curing units among dental assistants

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About