Home Current issue Instructions
About us Archives Login 
Editorial board Search articles Contact us
Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 351

 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 1  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 183-186

The effect of wrapping of light-cure tips on the cure of composite resin


Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, MAHSA University, Malaysia

Date of Web Publication3-Jan-2013

Correspondence Address:
Maan Ibrahim Al-Marzok
Level 6, Block E, Pusat Bandar Damansara, 50490, Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2278-9626.105384

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Aim: Dental curing lights are vulnerable to contamination during routine intra-oral use. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of wrapping light-cure tips on the hardness of cured composite resin. Settings and Design: Two types of barriers were used, which are the commercially available cellophane wraps and the disposable light-cure sleeves. A new light-cure unit used with a standard light-cure tip fixed at distance of 0.5 mm from the specimens. Materials and Methods: Sixty molds of 8 mm diameter and 2 mm depth filled with same type and shade of composite resin; 20 specimens cured without wrapping the tips, and 20 used for each wrapping method with new barrier was placed for each. The light-cure intensity and the Knoop hardness value were recorded. Statistical Analysis: Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze the statistical differences between the groups. Pearson's correlation analysis was used to determine the correlation between light intensity and Knoop hardness values. Results: The results of this study showed that there were significant differences in the light intensity among the groups. However, there were no significant differences in the Knoop hardness values among the 3 groups. The cellophane-wrapped around the light-cure tips is appeared to cause the least reduction of hardness from the non-wrapped tip. Conclusions: The effect of the barriers on the hardness of composite resin was small and probably clinically insignificant. The light intensity output was above the acceptable curing levels using any of the two barriers. The use of non-opaque barriers with the light-cure tips is recommended to prevent cross contamination.

Keywords: Composite, hardness, infection control, light-cure, wrapping


How to cite this article:
Al-Marzok MI. The effect of wrapping of light-cure tips on the cure of composite resin. Eur J Gen Dent 2012;1:183-6

How to cite this URL:
Al-Marzok MI. The effect of wrapping of light-cure tips on the cure of composite resin. Eur J Gen Dent [serial online] 2012 [cited 2019 Apr 25];1:183-6. Available from: http://www.ejgd.org/text.asp?2012/1/3/183/105384


  Introduction Top


Visible-light-activated dental resin composites have been widely used as esthetic restorative materials for anterior and posterior teeth. [1] Both the physical and the biological properties of the resin are affected by the degree of polymerization. [2]

The minimum light intensity required to cure 1.5-2.0 mm depth of composite is between 280-300 mW/cm 2 . [3] The intensity of emission is reduced by debris adherent to the light guide tip, repeated sterilization of the light guide, and damaged or chipped light guides. [4]

Dental offices must maintain a high level of infection control to protect patients and personnel, yet the light guides used when curing resins are often in direct contact with oral tissue. [5],[6] A variety of infection control methods has been used to prevent cross-contamination including surface disinfection, [7],[8] autoclavable tips, [9],[10] pre-sterilized single-use disposable tips, [11],[12] and covering or wrapping the light-cure tip with a non-opaque impermeable barrier. [13],[14]

Wiping with a disinfectant solution is quick and convenient, but some studies have shown that glutaraldehyde-based solutions may reduce light transmission through a light guide or damage the fibers in the light guide. [15] Autoclaving may significantly reduce the ability of the guide to transmit light from the light-cure unit to the tooth. [9],[16]

A pre-sterilized, single-use, plastic light-curing tips are available to be used. The main disadvantage noted was the glare generated by light escaping through the sidewalls of the light guide, which pose a potential risk to the eyes of the operator and assistant. [12]

Use of disposable translucent barriers such as plastic wrap, light tip sleeves, and finger cots may be a cost-effective alternative to avoid contamination of the light guide. They also eliminate the risk of damaging the guide during autoclaving or chemical disinfection. [6],[13]

The placement of a disposable barrier has an additional advantage over other methods of cross-infection control in that it prevents the adherence of composite to the light-guide tip, which has been found to cause a significant decrease in the depth of polymerization. [13]

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of wrapping light-cure tips on the curing light intensity and the hardness of cured composite resin.


  Materials and Methods Top


Two types of non-opaque impermeable barriers are used to wrap light-cure tips, which are the general-purpose cellophane wrap and the commercially available disposable light-cure sleeve (Pinnacle Cure Sleeve, Kerr, Orange, California, USA).

Each type of barrier was randomly selected and subsequently placed over the tip of a new light-cure unit with an 11-mm standard light-cure tip (Elipar S10, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) fixed at distance of 0.5 mm from the composite resin (Herculite XRV, shade A3; Kerr, Orange, California, USA).

The same shade was used throughout, as variation in shade has been shown to have a marked influence on the depth of cure of the composite.

Sixty molds of 8 mm diameter and 2 mm depth filled with same type and shade of composite resin; 20 specimens cured without barrier protection on the tips as the control group and 20 specimens for each wrapping method. Each composite specimen received 30 seconds of light activation. The measurements of the specimens were checked to an accuracy of ±0.1 mm using a digital Vernier.

The method of curing of composite resin specimens is illustrated in [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Diagram illustrating the method of curing composite resin specimens

Click here to view


The general-purpose cellophane wrap was well-fitted on the light-cure tip as shown in [Figure 2], which prevents contamination of surfaces underneath the barrier.
Figure 2: The use of cellophane-wrap around the light-cure tip

Click here to view


The disposable barrier was placed over the light-cure tip at the start of the curing cycle. After each specimen was cured, the barrier was checked for any damage by visual inspection for any holes, rips, or tears. New barriers were placed in the light-cure tip with the curing of each specimen.

With the selected barrier still on the tip, the light cure unit was switched on for 10 seconds prior to taking the output reading. Light cure tip is then placed over the radiometer sensor (Cure Rite, Caulk/Dentsply, Milford, Delaware, USA), which display the highest output.

The Knoop hardness value for each cured specimen was recorded at 3 different points within the central part of the back side of the specimen using the digital microhardness tester.

Data processing and analyzes were carried out using SPSS (Version 12) to analyze the results.


  Results Top


The mean values for the light intensity records are illustrated in [Figure 3]. The mean values for the control, cellophane-wrap, and cure sleeve groups were 569.43 mW/cm 2 , 535.4 mW/cm 2 , and 497.16 mW/cm 2 , respectively.
Figure 3: Bar chart shows light intensity output for the 3 groups in mW/cm2

Click here to view


The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze the statistical differences between the groups. A K-W value of 47.31, P<0.0001 was determined. Therefore, there was a significant difference in the light intensity output among the groups.

The mean values for the hardness obtained by the Knoop Hardness test as mentioned in [Figure 4] showed that specimens cured with the light tips that was not covered by a barrier were the hardest followed by the those cured with the light tips covered by general-purpose cellophane wraps and covering the light tips with disposable cure sleeves produced specimens with the lowest hardness values.
Figure 4: Bar chart shows Knoop Hardness values (KHN) for the 3 groups in Kg/mm2

Click here to view


The Kruskal-Wallis test was used, and the K-W value was 5.956, P=0.051. Therefore, there was no significant statistical difference in the Knoop Hardness values among the 3 groups (P>0.05).

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Fisher's protected least significant difference (PLSD) test for multiple comparisons were used to determine if there were significant differences in the Knoop Hardness values between the control and the 2 disposable barriers as shown in [Table 1]. Results showed that there was no significant difference between the control and the cellophane-wrapped group. This statistical test showed that the use of cure sleeve reduce the knoop hardness significantly in relation to the control group.
Table 1: Mean difference in Knoop Hardness values for the 2 barriers, relative to control

Click here to view


Pearson's correlation analysis was used to determine the correlation between light intensity and Knoop hardness values. No significant differences were found as shown in [Table 2].
Table 2: The relationship between light intensity and Knoop Hardness values for the three groups

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


It is important that light tips used for curing resin composites in the mouth be sterile. At the same time, it is important to ensure an adequate curing of the resin composite.

The determination of hardness of the specimens was done on the side farthest from the light-cure tip. This was done because any diminishing light intensity would adversely affect the cure and hardness of the composite resin, because this area was the farthest from the light source. [13]

The current study showed no significant differences among the 3 groups in the Knoop Hardness value.

Microhardness testing has been used in many studies, because surface hardness has been shown to be an indicator of degree of polymerization and, therefore, the efficiency of the light source. [17],[18]

The measuring of Knoop Hardness values as a method of assessing clinical performance was used by Chong et al., who found no statistically significant difference between the Knoop hardness values in the presence of steri-shield, finger cot, plastic glove, or cellophane wrap.

Furthermore, there was no significant association between light inte nsity values and Knoop hardness values obtained either when comparing the different disposable barriers or versus the no-barrier control.

Direct comparison between the control and barriers methods showed statistically significant difference with the cure sleeve group. The reduction in hardness value, although statistically significant, was small and not likely to be clinically significant.

The results of other studies into barrier methods of infection control on light output would suggest that while disposable barriers reduce the intensity of light, they do not have a clinically important effect on depth of cure. [13],[14],[19],[20]

Cellophane wrapped around the light guide has been reported to cause the least reduction in Knoop Hardness value of the cured composite. These findings came in agreement with previous studies comparing this method of infection-control with other disposable barriers. [13],[20]

In the current study, cure sleeves, which are designed specifically for use with light-cure units, produced the lowest hardness values. They are thicker and more robust than the cellophane wraps and are slightly more opaque. This may reflect differences in adaptation of the barrier to the tip, or perhaps variation in the thickness or optical properties of the barrier. [19]

Statistically significant differences occurred in the light intensity among the 3 groups. However, all recorded values remained above the required threshold as the researches stated that any light intensity above 300 mW/cm 2 is considered adequate for curing composite resin. [3],[13]

Variations in the thickness and the relative opacity of the material were considered to account for the reduction in light output readings. [13]

The distance from the tip of the light guide to the resin has a much greater effect on power density than these disposable barriers. In this study, the light-cure tip was brought to 0.5 mm from the composite resin, distance and access of the light tip to the resin restoration in vivo should be also considered in the clinical situation.


  Conclusions Top


The following conclusions can be drawn under the experimental conditions of this study:

  1. Disposable barriers are recommended for use with light-cure tips to prevent cross-contamination
  2. Wrapping the light-cure tip with general-purpose cellophane has no effect on the hardness of the cured composite resin. While the effect of the use Cure Sleeve barrier on the Knoop Hardness value was small and not likely to be clinically significant
  3. Light intensity output was above the acceptable curing levels regardless of the infection control barrier methods used
  4. No correlation was found between the Knoop hardness and light intensity for any of the wrapping methods used.


 
  References Top

1.Kawaguchi M, Fukushima T, Miyazaki K. The relationship between cure depth and transmission coefficient of visible-light-activated resin composites. J Dent Res 1994;73:516-21.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.Caughman WF, Rueggeberg FA, Curtis JW Jr. Clinical guidelines for photocuring restorative resins. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126:1280-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.Fan PL, Schumacher RM, Azzolin K, Geary R, Eichmiller FC. Curing-light intensity and depth of cure of resin-based composites tested according to international standards. J Am Dent Assoc 2002;133:429-34.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.Shortall AC, Harrington E. Guidelines for the selection, use and maintenance of visible light activation units. Br Dent J 1996;181:383-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Autio KL, Rosen S, Reynolds NJ, Bright JS. Studies on cross-contamination in the dental clinic. J Am Dent Assoc 1980;100:358-61.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.Miller CH, Palenik CJ. Infection control and management of hazardous materials. St. Louis: Mosby Pub. Co.; 1994  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Nelson SK, Caughman WF, Rueggeberg FA, Lockwood PE. Effect of glutaraldehyde cold sterilants on light transmission of curing tips. Quintessence Int 1997;28:725-30.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.Dugan WT and Hartleb JH. Influence of a glutaraldehyde disinfecting solution on curing light effectiveness. Gen Dent 1989;37:40-3.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Rueggeberg FA, Caughman WF, Comer RW. The effect of autoclaving on energy transmission through light-curing tips. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127:1183-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.Kofford KR, Wakefield CW, Nunn ME. The effect of autoclaving and polishing techniques on energy transmission of light-curing tips. Quintessence Int 1998;29:491-6.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.Morrow L, Wilson NH, Setcos JC. Single-use, disposable, pre-sterilised light-activation probe: The future? Quintessence Int 1998;29:1-5.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.Rueggeberg FA, Caughman WF. Factors affecting light transmission of single-use, plastic light-curing tips. Oper Dent 1998;23:179-84.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.Chong SL, Lam YK, Lee FK, Ramalingam L, Yeo AC, Lim CC. Effect of various infection-control methods for light-cure units on the cure of composite resins. Oper Dent 1998;23:150-4.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.Warren DP, Rice HC, Powers JM. Intensity of curing lights affected by barriers. J Dent Hyg 2000;74:20-3.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
15.Caughman GB, Caughman WF, Napier N, Schuster GS. Disinfection of visible-light-curing devices. Oper Dent 1989;14:2-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.Rueggeberg FA, Caughman WF, Curtis JW Jr. Effect of light intensity and exposure duration on cure of resin composite. Oper Dent 1994;19:26-32.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]    
17.Soh MS, Yap AU, Siow KS. Comparative depths of cure among various curing light types and methods. Oper Dent 2004;29:9-15.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]    
18.Kurachi C, Tuboy AM, Magalhães DV, Bagnato VS. Hardness evaluation of a dental composite polymerized with experimental LED-based devices. Dent Mater 2001;17:309-15.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Hodson NA, Dunne SM, Pankhurst CL. The effect of infection-control barriers on the light intensity of light-cure units and depth of cure of composite. Primary Dental Care 2005;12:61-7.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]    
20.Scott BA, Felix CA, Price RB. Effect of disposable infection control barriers on light output from dental curing lights. J Can Dent Assoc 2004;70:105-10.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]


This article has been cited by
1 The effect of a plastic-wrapped LED light curing unit and curing distance variances on diametral tensile strength of composite resin
R H F Zaini,A Soufyan,B Irawan,M Damiyanti
Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2018; 1073: 042008
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1856    
    Printed96    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded356    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal