Polymerization Efficiency of LED Curing Lights

DANIEL L. LEONARD, DDS*

DAVID G. CHARLTON, DDS, MSDt
HOWARD W. ROBERTS, DDSt
MARK E. COHEN, P H D ~

ABSTRACT
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the curing efficiency of three commercially
available light-emitting diode (LED)-based curing lights with that of a quartz tungsten halogen
(QTH)curing light by means of hardness testing. In addition, the power density (intensity) and
spectral emission of each LED light was compared with the QTH curing light in both the 380-
to 520-nm and the 450- to 500-nm spectral ranges.
Materials and Methods: A polytetrafluoroethylene mold 2 mm high and 8 mm in diameter was
used to prepare five depth-of-cure test specimens for each combination of exposure duration, com-
posite type (Silux Plus [microfill], 2-100 [hybrid]), and curing light (ZAP Dual CuringTMLight,
LumaCureTM;VersaLuxm, Optilux 401TM).After 24 hours, Knoop hardness measurements were
made for each side of the specimen, means were calculated, and a bottodtop Knoop hardness
(B/T KH) percentage was determined. A value of at least 80% was used to indicate satisfactory
polymerization. A linear regression of BTT KJd percentage versus exposure duration was performed,
and the resulting equation was used to predict the exposure duration required to produce a BK KH
percentage of 80% for the test conditions. The power densities ( p o w e r h i t area) of the LED curing
lights and the QTH curing light (Optilux 401TM)were measured 1 mm from the target using a labo-
ratory-grade, laser power meter in both the full visible light spectrum range (380-780 nm) and the
spectral range (between 450 and 500 nm), using a combination of long- and short-wave edge filters.
Results: The emission spectra of the LED lights more closely mirrored the absorption spectrum of
the commonly used photoinitiator camphorquinone. Specifically, 95 % of the emission spectrum of
the VersaLux, 87% of the LumaCure, 84% of the ZAP LED, and 78% of the ZAP combination
LED and QTH fell between 450 and 500 nm. In contrast, only 56% of the emission spectrum of
the Optilux 401TMhalogen lamp fell within this range. However, the power density between 450
and 500 nm was at least four times greater for the halogen lamp than for the purely LED lights. As
a result, the LED-based curing lights required from 39 to 61 seconds to cure a 2-mm thick hybrid
resin composite and between 83 and 131 seconds to adequately cure a microfill resin composite. By
comparison, the QTH light required only 21 and 42 seconds to cure the hybrid and microfill resin
composites, respectively.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The first-generation LED-based curing lights in this study required considerably longer exposure
durations than the QTH curing light to adequately polymerize a hybrid and a microfill resin
composite.
(JEsthet Restor Dent 14:286-295,2002)

'Colonel, USAF Dental Corps, Chiefi USAF Dental Investigation Service, Great Lakes, Illinois
tColonel, USAF Dental Corps, Director, Dental Materials Evaluation, USAF Dental Investigation Service,
Great Lakes, Illinois
$Lieutenant Colonel, USAF Dental Corps, Director, Technical Evaluations, USAF Dental Investigation
Service, Great Lakes, Illinois
SStatistician, Naval Dental Research Institute, Great Lakes, Illinois
286 JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC AND RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY

G rowing demand for esthetic
dentistry and the use of light-
cured materials have made an effi-
cient, dependable curing light indis-
pensable. Visible light-curing units
are commonly used to polymerize
light-sensitive restorative materials,
such as resin composites, resin-
modified glass ionomers, polyacid-
modified resin composites, and pit
and fissure sealants. In addition,
visible light-curing units are required
for most bonding systems, an
increasing number of bases and
liners, various luting agents, and
some provisional restorative
materials. Adequate polymerization
of these materials depends on the
light source intensity (irradiance
or power density), wavelength, and
exposure duration. Unless all three
parameters are adequate, the mate-
rials incompletely polymerize and
exhibit poor physical properties
that may lead to early failure.'I2
Most visible light-activated resins
use a diketone photoinitiator, such
as camphorquinone, to create free
radicals that initiate the polymeriza-
tion p r o c e s ~The
. ~ ~effective
~ wave-
length range to activate camphor-
quinone has been reported to be
between 410 nm and 500 nm, with
a peak wavelength of 470 nm.294
More recent research suggests a
further restriction of the adequate
wavelengths to between 450 nm
and 490 nm.5
Halogen dental curing lights, intro-
duced in the late 1970s, have been
the mainstay for over 20 years.
These units continue to serve the
dental profession extremely well
despite some inherent limitations.
For example, the halogen lamp
used in these units generates light
with wavelengths outside the effec-
tive spectrum for activation of the
photoinitiator and, therefore,
contains an internal filter to restrict
the light to the appropriate wave-
lengths. It has been shown that
light delivered by halogen curing
units diminishes in intensity with
use mainly owing to degradation of
the halogen bulb and its reflector,
blistering and cracking of the inter-
nal filter, and damage to the fiber-
optic tips used to focus the light on
the restorative material.6 All of
these problems can be corrected
easily and inexpensively. Even so,
studies have shown that the major-
ity of curing lights in use are not
properly maintained, and a sub-
stantial number deliver less than
the minimum power density
required to adequately polymerize
light-cured rest~ratives.~-~
Light-emitting diode (LED) technol-
ogy has been introduced as an alter-
native energy source for polymeriz-
ing dental restorative materials.1°
Several recent articles have described
and evaluated the purported advan-
tages of LED technology compared
with those of halogen lights.'l-l5
First, unlike halogen lights, LED
units produce light within a narrow
spectral range. The diodes use gal-
lium nitride as a semiconductor and
produce light with wavelengths
between 450 and 490 nm with a
peak at 460 nm. This energy range is
nearly ideal for activating materials
LEONARD ET AL
that employ camphorquinone as a
photoactivator. Other advantages
follow from the first: LED units
require less power to operate, since
they produce light only within a
narrow spectral range. This lower
power requirement may eliminate
the need for a cooling fan since heat-
producing infrared wavelengths are
eliminated. As a result, these lights
have the potential to be powered
with rechargeable batteries. This
feature makes it possible for the
units to be cordless, portable, and
relatively lightweight. Another
advantage is the extended life of
LEDs. At most, halogen bulbs last
100 hours,16 whereas LEDs can last
thousands of hours." Also, unlike
halogen bulbs and their filters and
reflectors, LEDs do not degrade over
time or need reflectors and filters, so
the light they produce is constant in
intensity. Finally, LED lights produce
less heat, so there is less potential for
gingival and pulpal irritation.
Previous studies have shown LED
technology to have promise. How-
ever, these studies used prototype
LED units rather than commercial
products, and in some studies, the
intensity of the halogen light with
which the LED unit was compared
was reduced to coincide with the
reduced power density output of
the LED ~ n i t . l ' - * ~
The purpose of this study was to
compare the curing efficiency of
three commercially available LED-
based curing lights with that of a
quartz tungsten halogen (QTH)
curing light by means of hardness
V O L U M E 14, N U M B E R 5 , 2002 287
 POLYMERIZATION EFFICIENCY OF L E D CURING LIGHTS

testing. In addition, the power den- was used to prepare five depth-of- ized the distance from the light
sity (intensity)and spectral emissioncure test specimens. To prepare source to the resin composite and
of each LED light were compared each specimen, the mold was placed provided a smooth, non-air-inhib-
with those of the QTH curing light on a clear glass slide (1mm thick) ited surface for subsequent hard-
in both the 380- to 520-nm and the and the resin composite was placed ness testing. One side of the speci-
450- to 500-nm spectral ranges. in the mold. The resin composite was men was then exposed to the curing
covered with a second glass slide to light. One group of five specimens
MATERIALS A N D METHODS ensure that the exposed surface of was made in this way, and addi-
Four light-curing units were evalu- the composite was flat and parallel tional groups of five specimens were
ated in this study: one using a QTH to the surface of the mold. A glass fabricated at increasing exposure
source, one with a combination of slide was used rather than a Mylar durations, depending on the partic-
LED and QTH sources, and two strip because pilot studies demon- ular curing light, until adequate
using LEDs only (Figure 1; Table 1). strated minimal power loss (i.e., depth of cure was obtained. A
less than 5 % ) through the glass hybrid resin composite (2-100 shade
Testing of Curing Efficiency slide compared with a 10% loss A-3,3M ESPE Dental Products,
A polytetrafluoroethylene mold with the Mylar strip. In addition, St. Paul, Minnesota) and a microfill
2 mm high and 8 mm in diameter the 1-mm thick glass slide standard- resin composite (Silux Plus, univer-

Pigwe 1. Curing lights evaluated: A, ZAP Dual CuringR*;

~ ;Optilux 401 ”.
B, LumaCure” C, V e r ~ a L u xD,

288 J O U R N A L OF E S T H E T I C A N D R E S T O R A T I V E D E N T I S T R Y

sal shade, 3 M ESPE Dental Prod-
ucts) were used to address reported
differences in degree of cure between
hybrid and microfill resins.18-21
Following fabrication, specimen
thickness was measured with an
electronic digital caliper (Fowler
& NSK, Newton, Massachusetts)
to ensure consistent thickness
(2.0 * 0.1 mm). Specimens were
stored dry for 24 hours in a light-
proof container prior to Knoop
hardness testing (M-400-G2, LECO,
St. Joseph, Michigan), using a 100-g
load and a 10-s dwell time. For
each specimen, three hardness mea-
surements were made on the top
surface and three on the bottom
surface. Mean hardness values were
calculated for each surface. These
values were then averaged for the
five specimens to obtain mean top
and bottom surface values. The
bottom value was divided by the
top value and multiplied by 100 to
obtain percentage depth of cure.
If that mean value exceeded 80%,
the specimen was considered to be
adequately p ~ l y m e r i z e d . ~ ~ - ~ ~
For each resin composite and cur-
ing light, the data were plotted, and
a simple linear regression was per-
formed with b o t t o d t o p Knoop
hardness (B/T KH) percentage as
the dependent variable and expo-
sure duration as the independent
variable. The resulting equation
was used to predict the exposure
duration required under the test
conditions to produce a specimen
with a B/T KH percentage of 80 %.
TABLE 1. CURING LIGHTS EVALUATED.
unit Mmkctur
ZAP Dual Curing CMS-Dental, Copenhagen, Denmark
LumaCure LumaLite, hc.,Spring Valley, California
VCrsaLW Centrix, Inc., Shelton, Connecticut
optilux401 Kur/Duneaon, Danbury, conncccian
Power Density Measurement
The power density ( p o w e r h i t
area) of the curing lights was
measured in milliwatts per square
centimeter (mW/cm2)with the
light tip placed 1 mm from the
target, using a laboratory-grade
laser power meter (Molectron
Power Max 5OOD with PMlO
probe, Molectron Detector, Inc.,
Portland, Oregon). Power density
at 1 mm is frequently reported in
the literature since this is the aver-
age distance of the light tip from
the composite being cured in clini-
cal practice. It is generally reported
that a power density of 300 to
400 mW/cm2 as measured between
380 and 520 nm is necessary to
adequately cure a 2-mm thick
composite ~pecimen.’?~’ However,
the spectral range of 450 to 490
nm has been shown to be the most
effective in initiating the poly-
merization process and is a more
accurate indicator of a light’s effi-
ciency.’ Therefore, the power den-
sity was also determined for the
spectral range between 450 and
500 nm ( 2 10 nm), using a combi-
nation of long- and short-wave
edge filters (Thermo Corion,
Franklin, Massachusetts).
LEONARD ET AL
rrp.
LED and halogen
LED
LED
Hdogco
The power density between 450
and 500 nm was calculated 1 mm
from the target in the following
manner: the power was measured
1 mm from the target without the
edge filters, using a Power Max
5OOD laser power meter with
PMlO probe. At 1 mm, all the light
from the lamp fell on the detector.
The power was then measured 20
mm from the target without the
filter. At 20 mm, all of the light did
not fall on the detector, and, there-
fore, a ratio of the two measure-
ments gave the percentage of power
lost. This ratio was multiplied by
the power measurement at 20 mm
(the closest distance the light tip
could be positioned from the detec-
tor when the filters were in place),
using the edge filters to obtain the
calculated power at 1 mm for the
450- to 500-nm wavelengths. The
power density between 450 and
500 nm was calculated using the
following formula:
power density = measured
power(mW)/area of light tip/
%transmittance of filters
The only assumption made is
that the light diverges the same
amount with the filter as without
V O L U M E 14, N U M B E R 5 , 2 0 0 2 289
 POLYMERIZATION EFFICIENCY OF LED CURING LIGHTS

TABLE 2. EXPOSURE DURATION REQUIRED TO OBTAIN 80% BOTTOM/TOP KNOOP the filter. This assumption is not
HARDNESS PERCENTAGE FOR A 2-MM THICK LAYER OF RESIN COMPOSITE. strictly true but is considered to be
Exporum Duration (4
sufficient if the majority of light
( M n g Lght 2-100 suux Plus falls on the detector.
ZAP Dual Curing 39 83

LumaCure 53 103 Spectral Emission Measurements

131 The spectral emission plots of the
VersaLux 61
VersaLux, LumaCure, ZAP Dual
Optilw 401 21 42
Curing Light, and Optilux 401
(Demetron Research Corp.,

100 100

80 80 -

- -E
I 60 I 60 -
Y Y
Q a

5 40-

20 20 -
P = 0.91 r2 = 0.76
I KH% = 21.72 + 1.48 x exposure duration (s)
B
T B R KH% = 15.38 + 0.78 x exposure duration (8)
0 0- I

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 180

A Exposure Duration (s)

20 - 20 - i
P = 0.88 P=0.87
B/TKH%= 32.19 + 0.91 x exposure duration (s) BTT KH% = 24.54 t 0.54x exposure duration (s)

Figure 2. Correlationand linear regression between the BottomlTop Knoop hardness percentages of A, Z-100 and exposure
duration using the Zap Dual Curing Light; B, Silux Plus and exposure duration using the Zap Dual Curing Light; C, Z-100 and
exposure duration using the LumaCure Curing Light; D,Silux Plus and exposure duration using the LumaCure Curing Light.

290 J O U R N A L OF ESTHETIC A&ID RESTORATIVE D E N T I S T R Y

 L E O N A R D E T AL

Danbury, Connecticut) were
determined with a spectral
telephotometerkolorimeter (PR-650
SpectraColorimeter, Photo Research,
Inc., Chatsworth, California).
RESULTS
Curing Efficiency
The predicted exposure durations
for the two LED lights, the com-
bination LED-QTH light, and
the halogen light required to pro-
duce 2-100 and Silux Plus speci-
mens with a B/T KH percentage of
80% are reported in Table 2. All
the LED-based lights required
longer exposure durations to poly-
merize the two resin composites
than did the halogen light.
Data for B/T KH percentage using
the four curing lights at the differ-
ent exposure durations are pre-
sented in Figure 2. Included in the
graphs is the regression equation
and r2. The r2 value represents the
proportion of the total variability
in B/T KH percentage that can be
accounted for by exposure dura-
tion alone. As seen in Figure 2, A,

100 ,
80

-
E
I 60
Y

40

m
4
2o 11 rz = 0.87
B i l KH% = 35.00 + 0.74 x exposure duration (5) I
20

0
f
9 = 0.82
BTT KH% = 27.67 + 0.40 x exposure duration (s)
0 1 I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 loo 120 140 160

E Exposure Duration (9) F Exposure Duration (s)

100

a
loo 0
-
E
5
Q.
80

60
/
5
P
40

20 7.0-

13 = 0.81 13 = 0.91
B/T KH% = 62.71+ 0.82 x exposum duration (s) BIT KH% = 27.50 + 1.25 x exposurs duration (s)
0
0 20 40 80 80 100 120 140 1M
G Exposure Duration (s)

Figure 2 continued. E, Z-100 and exposure duration using the VersaLux Curing Light; F, Silux Plus and exposure duration
using the VersaLux Curing Light; G,Z-100 and exposure duration using the Optilux 401 Curing Light; and H,Silux Plus and
exposure duration using the Optilux 401 Curing Light.

VOLUME 14, N U M B E R 5 , 2002 291

 POLYMERIZATION EFFICIENCY O F LED CUHINC LIGHTS
the first mean B/T KH percentage
value above 80% for the Zap Cur-
ing Light using the hybrid resin
composite 2-100 was recorded
when the exposure duration was 34
seconds. Analysis showed that there
was a statistically significant corre-
lation between exposure duration
and B/T KH percentage of the spec-
imens ( p c .0001, r2 = 0.91). From
the regression equation, the pre-
dicted exposure time required to
produce a specimen with B/T KH
percentage of 80% is 39 seconds.
For the microfill resin composite
Silux Plus, the Zap Curing Light
produced the first mean BIT KH
percentage value above 80% with
an exposure duration of 85 seconds
(see Figure 2, B). Exposure duration
was found to correlate significantly
with the B/T KH percentages
( p c .0001, r2 = 0.76). The regres-
sion equation revealed that the pre-
dicted exposure duration required
to produce a specimen with B/T KH
percentage of 80% under these test
conditions is 83 seconds.
The first mean B/T KH percentage
value above 80% measured for the
LumaCure Light using 2-100
(see Figure 2, C) was recorded
when the exposure was 48 seconds.
Again, the exposure duration corre-
lated significantly with the B/T KH
percentages ( p c .0001, r2 = 0.86).
Using the regression equation, the
predicted exposure duration
required to produce a 2-100 speci-
men with B/T KH percentage of
80% is 53 seconds.
292 J O U R N A L O F ESTHETIC A N D RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY
Using the LumaCure Light to poly-
merize Silux Plus revealed that the
exposure duration of 108 seconds
was necessary to produce the first
specimen with a mean B/T KH
percentage value above 80% (see
Figure 2, D). Exposure duration
was found to correlate significantly
with the B/T KH percentages of the
specimens ( p < .0001, r2 = 0.87).
The regression equation revealed
that the predicted exposure duration
required to produce a specimen with
B/T KH percentage of 80% under
these test conditions is 103 seconds.
Figure 2, E, shows that the first mean
B/T KH percentage value above 80%
when polymerizing 2-100 with the
VersaLux Curing Light was recorded
with an exposure duration of 60 sec-
onds. Exposure duration correlated
significantly with the B/T KH per-
centages of the 2-100 specimens
( p < .0001, r2 = 0.87). As calculated
using the regression equation, the
exposure duration required to pro-
duce a specimen with a B/T KH
percentage of 80% is 61 seconds.
The first mean B/T KH percentage
value above 80% produced with
the VersaLux Light using Silux Plus
(see Figure 2, F) was observed when
the exposure duration was 120 sec-
onds. Statistical testing found that
exposure duration correlated signif-
icantly with the B/T KH percentages
( p < .0001, r2 = 0.82). From the
regression equation, an exposure
time of 131 seconds is necessary
to obtain a B/T KH percentage of
80% with this resin composite.
With the Optilux 401 light and
2-100 (see Figure 2, G), the first
mean BTT KH percentage value above
80% was recorded when the expo-
sure duration was 20 seconds. The
exposure duration correlated signifi-
cantly with the B/T KH percentages
( p c .0001, r2 = 0.81). Based on the
regression equation, the predicted
exposure duration required to pro-
duce a specimen with a B/T KH
percentage of 80% is 21 seconds.
The first mean B/T KH percentage
value above 80% measured for
Silux Plus using the Optilux 401
was recorded when the exposure
duration was 40 seconds (see
Figure 2, H). Exposure duration
was found to correlate significantly
with the B/T KH percentages
( p c .0001, r2 = 0.91). The regres-
sion equation predicted that an
exposure of 42 seconds is required
with Silux Plus to produce a B/T
KH percentage of 80%.
Power Density and Spectral Emission
The power density measured for
each light in the emission spectrum
of 380 to 520 nm, and in the more
effective 450- to 500-nm range, is
presented in Figure 3. Spectral
emission plots are presented in Fig-
ure 4. These figures demonstrate
that the LED lights more closely
mirror the absorption spectrum of
camphorquinone. Specifically, 95 %
of the emission spectrum of the
Versalux, 87% of the LumaCure,
84% of the ZAP LED, and 78% of
the ZAP combination LED and
QTH fell between 450 and 500 nm.
 LEONARD E T A L

In contrast, 56% of the Optilux

401 halogen lamp's emission spec-
1000
trum fell within this range. How-
f
ever, as seen in Figure 3 , the power 5
750
density between 450 and 500 nm
was at least four times greater for
s
the halogen lamp than for the
3 500

purely LED-based lights. il

n.
250

DISCUSSION
0
Because of the increasing number LurmCun V-Lux ZAPFED) LI\p OPT401
(LED+H.logm)
of light-activated dental materials,
Figure 3 . Power density (mWlcm2)for the LumaCure, VersaLux, ZAP,
the visible light-curing unit is a and Optilux 401 curing lights in both 450- to SOO-nm and 380- to
common piece of equipment in den- S20-nm spectral ranges.
tal offices. The proper performance
of these units (i.e., their ability to
provide adequate power density) is light when both were adjusted to Organization for Standardization
crucial to optimizing the physical provide an output of 100 mW/crn2." (ISO) 4049 depth of cure testing.13
properties of light-activated materi- Similarly, Mills and co-workers The compressive strengths of sam-
als. Inadequate polymerization has demonstrated a significantly greater ples produced by both lights were
been associated with inferior physi- depth of cure with a 21-LED array statistically equivalent.
cal properties, higher solubility, light than with a halogen curing
retention failures, and adverse pul- light; however, in their study the All of these studies used either
pal responses caused by residual halogen light's output was adjusted experimental LED devices with a
down
unpolymerized r n ~ n o m e r s . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to 300 mW/cm2 to coincide relatively large number of LEDs
The performance of halogen lights with the output of the LED light.12 and concentrating light guide tips
is known to diminish over time if Stahl and colleagues compared or reduced the output of the halo-
the bulb, reflector, fiber-optic tips, the flexural strength and flexural gen light to coincide with the lower
and filter are not properly main- modulus of resin composites poly- output of the LED light or both."-14
tained.6 It is also known that prac- merized with a halogen curing The commercially available LED
titioners are often unaware of this light (755 mW/cm2) and a 27-LED lights used in this study only had
degradation and continue to use array light with a concentrating 7- or 12-LED arrays. Therefore,
poorly performing lights, which leads light guide tip (350 mW/cm2).14 In the findings of this study are con-
to inadequate p~lymerization.~-~ most cases, no significant differ- sistent with those of Kurachi and
ences in the physical properties c o - ~ o r k e r swho
, ~ ~ compared a
Recent literature suggests that were found. In a parallel study 6-LED array light having a power
LEDs, specifically gallium nitride comparing the same light sources, density of 79 mW/cm2 with a
blue LEDs, offer an effective means Jandt and colleague^'^ reported halogen light having an output of
of polymerizing light-activated that the halogen light produced a 475 m W / ~ m ~In. ' that ~ study,
materials.11-13 Fujibayashi and significantly greater depth of cure hybrid resin composite samples
colleagues" found that a 61-LED than the LED light but that both (0.35, 1.25, and 1.8 mm thick)
array produced a greater depth of lights met the minimum require- were exposed for the typical 40 sec-
cure than did a halogen curing ments for the International onds with the halogen light and for

VOLUME 14, N U M B E R 5, 2 0 0 2 293

 POLY\lERI% \TIOX EFFIGIES(:\ OF L E D C:l-RlSG LIGHTS

1.s approximately twice the exposure

time needed by the hybrid resin
composite (2-100) to produce the
-Ea same depth of cure.
C

a 0.5 The results indicate that the com-

ii
0
mercially available LED-based
n curing lights used in this study can
0
380 396 412 428 444 480 476 492 508 524 be expected to effectively polymer-
ize a hybrid resin composite in
Wavelength (nm) an acceptable amount of time
Figure 4. Spectral emission plots of the LumaCure, VersaLux, ZAP, and (39-61 s), but not a microfill resin
Optilux 401 curing lights. The plots have each been normalized such that
the maximum power density of each light source is defined as one arbitrary composite (83-131 s). However,
unit (a.u.). LED technology for polymerizing
light-activated dental materials
holds great promise. Future curing
20,40, 60,120, and 180 seconds Degree of polymerization is based units with a greater number of
with the LED light. Under those on several factors, including the LEDs and power-concentrating
conditions, samples exposed to the output and wavelength of the cur- light guides should provide the
LED light for 40 seconds had lower ing light, exposure duration, and power density necessary to ade-
hardness values than those poly- the particular light-activated mater- quately polymerize materials in a
merized with the halogen light for ial. In this study, microhardness timely manner. The many advan-
40 seconds. All samples, regardless testing was used as an indicator of tages of LED units compared with
of thickness, required 120 seconds adequate polymerization. Ideally, those using halogen bulbs make
of exposure with the LED light to the B/T KH percentage would be further development of this technol-
produce hardness values compara- 100%; however, previous studies ogy exciting and promising.
ble to those produced by an expo- have used 80% as the minimum
sure duration of 40 seconds with value required to indicate adequate CONCLUSION

the halogen light. p ~ l y m e r i z a t i o n . ~Microfill

The LED curing lights in this study
have a higher percentage of their
output in the absorption spectrum
of camphorquinone compared with
the Optilux halogen curing light
(see Figures 3 and 4). Nevertheless,
even if the output is limited to
between 450 and 500 nm, as sug-
gested by Nomoto: the halogen
light still provides greater power
density than LED lights.
~ - ~ ~ resin
composites have been shown to
require more power than hybrid
resin composites for adequate poly-
merization.18-21?28 It is believed that
microfills exhibit a reduced depth
of cure because their small filler
particles cause light scattering,
which decreases the effectiveness
of the curing light. This concept is
reinforced by the results of this
study because the microfill resin
composite (Silux Plus) required
The polymerization efficiency of
three commercially available LED-
based curing lights was compared
with that of a QTH light by means
of hardness testing. In addition, the
power density (intensity) of each
light in both the normally reported
380- to 520-nm range and the more
effective 450- to 500-nm spectral
range was measured and compared.
Although a smaller percentage of
the QTH unit’s power density fell
within the important 450- to 500-nm

294 J O U R N A L OF E S T H E T I C A N D R E S T O R A T I V E D E N T I S T R Y

absorption range of the camphor-
quinone photoactivator, it was still
at least four times more powerful
than the LED-based units in this
range. As a result, the LED-based
units required considerably longer
exposure times to adequately poly-
merize a hybrid and a microfill
resin composite.
DISCLOSURE AND
ACKNOWLEGMENTS
The views expressed in this article
are those of the authors and do not
reflect the official policy of the
Department of Defense or other
departments of the United States
Government.
The authors thank 3M ESPE for
supplying the resin composites used
in this study.
REFERENCES
1. Rueggeberg FA, Caughman WF, Curtis
JW. Effect of light intensity and exposure
duration on cure of resin composite. Oper
Dent 1994; 19:26-32.
2. Cook W. Spectral distributions of dental
photopolymerization sources. J Dent Res
1982; 61:1436-1438.
3. Council on Dental Materials. Visible light-
cured and activating units. J Am Dent
ASSOC1985; 11O:lOO-103.
4. McCabe JF, Carnick TE. Output from
visible-light activation units and depth of
cure of light activated composites. J Dent
Res 1989; 68:1534-1539.
5. Nomoto R. Effect of light wavelength on
polymerization of light-cured resins. Dent
Mater J 1997; 16:60-73.
6. Friedman J. Variability of lamp character-
istics in dental curing lights. J Esthet Dent
1989; 1:189-190.
7. Barghi N, Berry T, Hatton C. Evaluating
intensity output of curing lights in private
dental offices. J Am Dent Assoc 1994;
125:992-996.
8. Martin FE. A survey of the efficiency of
visible light curing units. J Dent 1998;
26:239-243.
9. Miyazaki M, Hattori T, Ichiishi Y, Kondo
M, Onose H, Moore BK. Evaluation of
curing units used in private dental offices.
Oper Dent 1998; 2350-54.
10. Mills RW. Blue light emitting diodes:
Another method of light curing? Br Dent
J 1995; 178:169.
11. Fujibayashi K, Ishimaru K, Takhashi N,
Kohno A. Newly developed curing unit
using blue light-emitting diodes. Dent Jpn
1998; 34:49-53.
12. Mills RW, Jandt KD, Ashworth SH. Den-
tal composite depth of cure with halogen
and blue light emitting diode technology.
Br Dent J 1999; 186:388-391.
13. Jandt KD, Mills RW, Blackwell GB,
Ashworth SH. Depth of cure and com-
pressive strength of dental composites
cured with blue light emitting diodes
(LEDs). Dent Mater 2000; 16:41-47.
14. Stahl F, Ashworth SH, Jandt KD, Mills
RW. Light-emitting diode (LED) poly-
merisation of dental composites: flexural
properties and polymerisation potential.
Biomaterials 2000; 21:1379-1385.
15. Kurachi C, Tuboy A, Magalhaes D,
Bagnato V. Hardness evaluation of a
dental composite polymerized with experi-
mental LED-based devices. Dent Mater
2001; 17:309-315.
16. Rueggeberg FA, Twiggs SW, Caughman
WF, Khajotia S. Lifetime intensity profiles
of 11 light-curing units. J Dent Res 1996;
75:380. (Abstr)
17. Haitz RH, Craford MG, Weissman RH.
Light emitting diodes. In: Bass M, ed.
Handbook of optics. 2nd Ed. New York:
McGraw Hill, 1995:12.1-12.39.
18. Ferracane JL, Aday P, Matsumoto H,
Marker VA. Relationship between shade
and depth of cure for light-activated dental
composite resins. Dent Mater 1986;
2:80-84.
LEONARD E T A L
19. Atmadja G, Bryant RW. Some factors
influencing the depth of cure of visible
light-activated composite resins. Aust Dent
J 1990; 35:213-218.
20. Rueggeberg FA, Caughman WF, Curtis
JW, Davis HC. A predictive model for the
polymerization of photo-activated resin
composites. Int J Prosthodont 1994;
7:159-166.
21. Leonard DL, Charlton DG, Roberts HW,
Hilton TJ, Zionic A. Determination of the
minimum irradiance required for adequate
polymerization of a hybrid and a microfill
composite. Oper Dent 2001; 26:176-180.
22. Watts DC, Amer 0, Combe EC. Charac-
teristics of visible-light-acdvated compos-
ite systems. Br Dent J 1984; 156:209-215.
23. Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Caughman WF.
The curing potential of light-activated
composite resin luting agents. J Prosthet
Dent 1991; 65512-518.
24. Manga RK, Charlton DG, Wakefield CW.
In vitro evaluation of a curing radiometer
as a predictor of polymerization depth.
Gen Dent 1995; 43:241-243.
25. Bayne SC, Taylor DF. Dental materials. In:
Sturdevant CM, Ro berson TM, Heymann
HO, Sturdevant JR, eds. The art and sci-
ence of operative dentistry. 3rd Ed. St.
Louis: Mosby, 1995:260.
26. Blankenau RJ, Kelsey WP,Powell GL,
Shearer GO, Barkmeier WW, Cave1 WT.
Degree of composite resin polymerization
with visible light and argon laser. Am J
Dent 1991; 4:40-42.
27. Ferracane JL, Mitchem JC, Condon JR,
Todd R. Wear and marginal breakdown
of composites with various degrees of
cure. J Dent Res 1997; 76:1508-1516.
28. Ruyter IE,Oysaed H. Conversion in differ-
ent depths of ultraviolet and visible light
activated composite materials. Acta Odon-
to1 Scand 1982; 40:179-192.
Reprint requests: Col. David G . Churlton,
Det I, USAFSAM, 31 OC B St., Bldg IH,
Great Lakes, 1L 60088; e-mail:
dauid.charlton&dri.med.navy.mil
Q2002 BC Decker lnc.
VOLUME 1 4 , NUMBER 5, 2 0 0 2 295