EC Dental Science

Background: Resin-based composites have become the most commonly used adhesive restorative materials in dentistry. However, insufficient polymerization can disrupt color constancy, affect strength, decrease hardness, and impact water sorption. This study aimed to measure the knowledge and attitudes toward light-curing units (LCUs) among dental professionals in Saudi Arabia.

Methodology: A cross-sectional study collected data from 249 dental professionals in Saudi Arabia using a self-administered questionnaire adapted from a previous study and hosted on Google Forms to assess the knowledge and attitudes about maintenance and infection control with LCUs among the dental professionals.

Results: A majority of the participants, around 67%, were currently using light-emitting diode type light curing, and most knowledge questions were correctly answered, with the exception of a question about the term used to define the amount of power of an LCU, which 40% incorrectly answered as radiant exposure. The mean score of knowledge and practice was calculated (mean = 14.00, standard deviation = 2.96), and significant differences were found between the professionals (p = 0.025), with specialists and consultants scoring higher (score = 15.24). Additionally, participants working in both governmental and private sectors had significantly higher scores than others (score = 15.86, p = 0.041).

Conclusion: The study revealed that dental professionals correctly answered most knowledge questions about LCUs, but half of the maintenance questions were answered incorrectly. Educational workshops and courses could improve LCU knowledge about maintenance.

 Keywords: LCU; Dental Professional; Maintenance; Knowledge; Attitude

1. Demarco FF., et al. “Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?” Brazilian Oral Research 31 (2017): e56.
2. Pallesen U and Van Dijken JWV. “A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations”. Dental Materials10 (2015): 1232-1244.
3. Kopperud SE., et al. “Light curing procedures-performance, knowledge level and safety awareness among dentists”. Journal of Dentistry 58 (2017): 67-73.
4. David JR., et al. “Effect of exposure time on curing efficiency of polymerizing units equipped with light-emitting diodes”. Journal of Oral Science1 (2007): 19-24.
5. Jadhav S., et al. “Influence of light curing units on failure of direct composite restorations”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry3 (2011): 225-227.
6. Singh TK., et al. “Light curing devices: A clinical review”. Journal of Orofacial Research1 (2011): 15-19.
7. Corciolani G., et al. “The influence of tip geometry and distance on light-curing efficacy”. Operative Dentistry3 (2008): 325-331.
8. Alam BF., et al. “Knowledge of Pakistani dentist towards light curing units: A cross sectional analysis”. Journal of the Pakistan Dental Association2 (2020): 81-86.
9. Bayne SC. “Correlation of clinical performance with ‘in vitro tests’ of restorative dental materials that use polymer-based matrices”. Dental Materials1 (2012): 52-71.
10. Ueda M., et al. “The effect of clinical experience on dentine bonding effectiveness: Students versus trained dentists”. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation9 (2010): 653-657.
11. Shimokawa CAK., et al. “Ability of four dental radiometers to measure the light output from nine curing lights”. Journal of Dentistry 54 (2016): 48-55.
12. Milly H and Banerjee A. “Evaluating the clinical use of light-emitting diode vs halogen photocuring units”. Oral Health and Preventive Dentistry1 (2018): 21-25.
13. Al-Senan D., et al. “Knowledge and attitude of dental clinicians towards light-curing units: A cross-sectional study”. International Journal of Dentistry 2021 (2021): 5578274.
14. Alsenan D., et al. “Knowledge and perception about light-curing units among dental students and interns: A cross-sectional study”. Medical Science 26 (2022): ms529e2600.
15. Binalrimal S., et al. “Evaluation of light-curing intensity output and students’ knowledge among dental schools in Riyadh city”. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical SciencesD (2020): 178-181.
16. Alqabbaa LM., et al. “Light intensity output of visible light communication units and clinicians’ knowledge and attitude among Riyadh private clinics”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry6 (2018): 667-670.
17. Santini A and Turner S. “General dental practitioners’ knowledge of polymerisation of resin-based composite restorations and light curing unit technology”. British Dental Journal6 (2011): E13.
18. Rueggeberg FA. “State-of-the-art: dental photocuring-A review”. Dental Materials1 (2011): 39-52.
19. Krifka S., et al. “Oxidative stress and cytotoxicity generated by dental composites in human pulp cells”. Clinical Oral Investigation 16 (2012): 215-224.
20. Schneider LFJ., et al. “Influence of photoinitiator type on the rate of polymerization, degree of conversion, hardness and yellowing of dental resin composites”. Dental Materials9 (2008): 1169-1177.
21. Soh MS., et al. “Effectiveness of composite cure associated with different curing modes of LED lights”. Operative Dentistry4 (2003): 371-377.
22. Mahn E. “Clinical criteria for the successful curing of composite materials”. Revista Clínica de Periodoncia, Implantología y Rehabilitación Oral3 (2013): 148-153.
23. Shortall AC., et al. “Guidelines for the selection, use, and maintenance of LED light-curing units-Part 1”. British Dental Journal8 (2016): 453-460.
24. Price RB., et al. “Contemporary issues in light curing”. Operative Dentistry1 (2014): 4-14.
25. Suliman AA., et al. “Training and experience effect on light‐curing efficiency by dental practitioners”. Journal of Dental Education6 (2020): 652-659.