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

CE Information & Quiz

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. Sign up today!
Forgot your password? Click Here!

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.