Knoop microhardness mapping used to compare the efficacy of LED, QTH and PAC curing lights

This study used a hardness mapping technique to compare the ability of seven curing lights to polymerize five composites. Six curing lights (Sapphire [plasma-arc: PAC], Bluephase16i [light emitting diode: LED], LEDemetron II [LED], SmartLite IQ [LED], Allegro [LED] and UltraLume-5 [Polywave LED]) were compared to an Optilux 501 (halogen: QTH) light. Five resin composites (Vit-1-escence, Tetric Evoceram, Filtek Z250, 4 Seasons and Solitaire 2) were polymerized at 4 mm and 8 mm from the end of the light guide. Four composites were light cured for the following times using these lights: Sapphire (5 seconds), Bluephase16i (5 seconds), LEDemetron II (5 seconds), SmartLite IQ (10 seconds), UltraLume-5 (10 seconds), Allegro (10 seconds) and Optilux 501 (20 seconds). Solitaire 2 required double these irradiation times. On each specimen, the Knoop microhardness (KHN) was measured at 49 locations across a 3 x 3 mm grid to determine the ability of each light to cure each brand of composite. The PAC light delivered the broadest spectrum of wavelengths, the greatest irradiance and hardness values that were 4.7 to 18.1 KHN(50gf) harder than the other lights. The ability of the lights to cure these five composites was ranked from highest to lowest: Sapphire, Optilux 501, Allegro, UltraLume-5, SmartLite IQ, LEDemetron II and Bluephase16i (ANOVA with REGWQ multiple comparison adjustment, p < 0.01).