Aims:  Light-emitting diode (LED) polymerization of dental restorative materials has become increasingly popular.  However, individual light-curing unit (LCU) functions (intensity and/or wavelength emission) may not conform to manufacturer specifications due to quality control issues.  The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of irradiance, in terms of power density (intensity) and spectral distribution (peak wavelength), emitted from LED and quartz-tungsten halogen (QTH) LCUs in vitro.  The battery expenditure of these LED units was also tested.

Methods and Materials:  The intensity and spectral distribution from four third generation LED (Smartlite PS, Coltolux LED, radii Plus, Diopower) and one QTH (Schein Visible Cure) light sources were measured using six different dental curing light meters (Coltolux, Cure Right, Demetron 100, Demetron LED., Hilux, and Light Meter-200) and a visible-ultraviolet light spectrophotometer (Hitachi Elmer-Perkins).  The battery life was also plotted for each light source following a 1500 second duration period.  The data obtained from radiometric and spectrophotometric analysis was compared to manufacturer specifications.

Results:  Radiometric evaluation revealed LED light units tested did not satisfy manufacturer claims for minimum intensities.  Spectral emissions from the LED light sources did meet manufacturer requirements.  No clinically appreciable battery drain was evidenced from testing all re-chargeable LED units.

Conclusion:  Despite limitations LED technology appears to be an effective alternative for curing of light-activated esthetic restorative materials.  Additional advantages associated with LED curing lights include ergonomic handling capabilities, negative heat generation, and minimal maintenance concerns.

Keywords:  Light-emitting diode, LED, composite polymerization, dental light meter, spectrophotometry

Citation:  Owens BM, Rodriguez KH. Radiometric and Spectrophotometric Analysis of Third Generation Light-emitting Diode (LED) Light-curing Units. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007 February;(8)2:043-051.