The effect of disposable infection control barriers and physical damage on the power output of light curing units and light curing tips

McAndrew, Robert; Lynch, Christopher D.; Pavli, Maria; Bannon, A.; Milward, Paul J.

doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.312

Cited by 36 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Disposable barriers are convenient, non-invasive, and prevent contact between the oral tissues and the light guide. These types of barriers also eliminate the risk of damaging the light guide during autoclaving or disinfection 10,19,22,27 . Among various infection control barriers, the plastic wrap has the least effect on the LCU power density 19,27 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These types of barriers also eliminate the risk of damaging the light guide during autoclaving or disinfection 10,19,22,27 . Among various infection control barriers, the plastic wrap has the least effect on the LCU power density 19,27 . However, a thin single-layer infection control barrier tends to tear easily while manipulating the LCU, or by the sharp edges of the prepared tooth during the light curing procedure while trying to keep the light guide tip as close to the prepared cavity as possible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of a multi-layer infection control barrier on the micro-hardness of a composite resin

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of multiple layers of an infection control barrier on the micro-hardness of a composite resin. Material and MethodsOne, two, four, and eight layers of an infection control barrier were used to cover the light guides of a high-power light emitting diode (LED) light curing unit (LCU) and a low-power halogen LCU. The composite specimens were photopolymerized with the LCUs and the barriers, and the micro-hardness of the upper and lower surfaces was measured (n=10). The hardness ratio was calculated by dividing the bottom surface hardness of the experimental groups by the irradiated surface hardness of the control groups. The data was analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test. ResultsThe micro-hardness of the composite specimens photopolymerized with the LED LCU decreased significantly in the four- and eight-layer groups of the upper surface and in the two-, four-, and eight-layer groups of the lower surface. The hardness ratio of the composite specimens was <80% in the eight-layer group. The micro-hardness of the composite specimens photopolymerized with the halogen LCU decreased significantly in the eight-layer group of the upper surface and in the two-, four-, and eight-layer groups of the lower surface. However, the hardness ratios of all the composite specimens photopolymerized with barriers were <80%. ConclusionsThe two-layer infection control barrier could be used on high-power LCUs without decreasing the surface hardness of the composite resin. However, when using an infection control barrier on the low-power LCUs, attention should be paid so as not to sacrifice the polymerization efficiency.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of a multi-layer infection control barrier on the micro-hardness of a composite resin

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[7] This may decrease light incidence,[36101112] although we recorded a reduction lower than 4% [Table 1]. Curing light units generally provide the minimum light intensity recommended (280-300 mW/cm 2 ),[9] but it may become insufficient with the use of protective barriers on light output.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Several studies have reported the impact of using PVC barriers[31011] and how they affect the microhardness of composite resins. [612] However, these studies have not investigated their use in conjunction with different curing distances and effects on irradiance and %DC of the resin.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distance and protective barrier effects on the composite resin degree of conversion

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context:The food wrap films are used to cover the tip of curing light units in order to avoid contamination and prevent damage to the light guide. However, their effects on resin polymerization are not fully known.Aims:We investigated the effects on restoration efficiency of a food wrap protective barrier used on the tip of curing light units.Materials and Methods:For each treatment, five replications were performed, a total of 60 bovine incisor. The degree of conversion (%DC) of restorations with the composite resin Opallis EA2 was evaluated using 3 curing light devices (Optilux 501, Optilight and Ultra LED) and 2 curing distances (0 and 5 mm). The composite resin was tested for restoration of cavities in bovine crowns. %DC values were measured by the Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy-attenuated total reflectance technique.Statistical Analysis Used:The data were analyzed using 3-way ANOVA and Tukey's test.Results:Use of the protective film lowered %DC (F = 4.13; P = 0.05), and the effects of curing distance were associated to the curing light device (F = 3.61; P = 0.03).Conclusions:The distance from the light curing tip and use of a translucent protective barrier on the light-cure device can both impair composite resin %DC.

show abstract

“…[12][13][14][15] Soğancı ve ark. 16 ünit üzerinde çeşitli bölgelerden örnekler alarak yaptıkları çalışma sonucunda kreşuvar, refrektör kolu, tetiyer ve hava su spreyi üzerinde de çeşitli mikroorganizma kolonilerine rastlamışlardır.…”

unclassified

Kontami̇ne Aeratör, Angldruva Ve Işik Başliklarinin Mi̇krobi̇yoloji̇k İncelemesi̇ Ve Enfeksi̇yon Kontrolü

İlday¹,

Türel²,

Karataş³

et al. 2015

Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficiency of disinfection and sterilization methods which applied on contaminated aerator, angldruva and curing light tips in our clinic. Material and method: The samples from contaminated 39 aerator, 38 angldruva and 37 curing light tips were taken by swab technique and gram, catalase-coagulase tests were applied on these samples. To investigate the efficiency of sterilization and disinfection methods, Descosept AF surface disinfectant was used for disinfection and autoclave was used for sterilization. Results: As a result of tests identified bacteria's are coagulase (-) streptococci, alfa-hemolitic streptococci, micrococci, neisseria, difteroid, peptostreptococci and candida. On the samples which are disinfected with alcohol based disinfectant and are sterilized with autoclave, no bacteria identified. On the contaminated samples most microorganisms identified on the angldruva tips. Conclusion: Surface disinfectant and sterilization applied on contaminated aeratör, angldruva and curing light tips are enough for eliminating microorganisms in our restorative dentistry clinic.

show abstract

The effect of disposable infection control barriers and physical damage on the power output of light curing units and light curing tips

Cited by 36 publications

References 5 publications

Effect of a multi-layer infection control barrier on the micro-hardness of a composite resin

Effect of a multi-layer infection control barrier on the micro-hardness of a composite resin

Distance and protective barrier effects on the composite resin degree of conversion

Kontami̇ne Aeratör, Angldruva Ve Işik Başliklarinin Mi̇krobi̇yoloji̇k İncelemesi̇ Ve Enfeksi̇yon Kontrolü

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About