Aim This study compared the effect of seven different disposable cross-infection control sleeves on the total energy delivered (J/cm2) by four different dental light-curing units (LCUs). Methods Four LCUs and seven disposable sleeves (six proprietary brands and a general-purpose cellophane wrap) were used. Anterior and posterior tooth position was included as a third factor. Total energy delivered was measured for each LCU without a sleeve (control) and with each sleeve and for each tooth position. Curing time was 10 seconds, as recommended by the LCU manufacturers. Measurements were taken 10 times for each sleeve/LCU/tooth position and means (SD)calculated. Data were analysed using three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The null hypothesis was that none of the sleeves would, at a 0.1% level, significantly affect the total energy delivered. Results All sleeves significantly reduced the total energy delivered ( P<0.001). Cellophane wrap (cling film) had the smallest effect on total energy. Total energy delivered was most strongly influenced by tooth position and LCU model. Conclusions Sleeves significantly reduce the total energy delivered compared to unsleeved LCUs, but to a degree that may not be clinically important. Cling film reduced total energy delivered to a significantly lesser extent than did proprietary bands of sleeve. In order to determine adequacy of delivered total energy, sleeved LCUs should be tested prior to clinical use.
Comment on “Cling film for mobile phones to prevent cross-infection during the COVID-19 pandemic”
