Life usually gets simpler, but in the case of photocuring dental restorative materials, just the opposite is true. Confusing and contradictory barrages of clinical claims have been made with the ever-growing variety of light-curing sources available today. Often, laboratory research or clinical studies related to these systems are lacking prior to their being introduced to the market, leaving the clinician to become the "testing ground." Manufacturers prefer to market the newest technology available, yet, depending on the type of practice and composite system in use, such "state-of-the- art" devices may offer no advantage. For some clinicians, changing to a "fast cure" composite in combination with a traditional QTH light, instead of purchasing a $4,000 PAC light, may be the only improvement in efficiency needed. However, others may want to spend as little time as possible per procedure and do not mind investing in the newest, yet "unproven" technology. Either way, today's clinician needs to be wary of the many claims made by manufacturers of all light-curing units. It is prudent that the clinician, prior to selecting a device, aggressively ask questions and dig for the truth before "buying into" a particular unit or system philosophy. At stake are the durability of restorations, the satisfaction of the patient and the well-earned reputation of the operator.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||3|
|State||Published - Dec 1 2002|
ASJC Scopus subject areas