Shedding new light on composite polymerization

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)636-638
Number of pages3
JournalOperative Dentistry
Volume27
Issue number6
StatePublished - Dec 1 2002

Fingerprint

Polymerization
Light
Technology
Dental Materials
Equipment and Supplies
Patient Satisfaction
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Shedding new light on composite polymerization. / Caughman, Wyatt Franklin; Rueggeberg, Frederick.

In: Operative Dentistry, Vol. 27, No. 6, 01.12.2002, p. 636-638.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{801d13d1cf104094980c7b187d0ef130,
title = "Shedding new light on composite polymerization",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Caughman, {Wyatt Franklin} and Frederick Rueggeberg",
year = "2002",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "636--638",
journal = "Operative Dentistry",
issn = "0361-7734",
publisher = "Indiana University School of Dentistry",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shedding new light on composite polymerization

AU - Caughman, Wyatt Franklin

AU - Rueggeberg, Frederick

PY - 2002/12/1

Y1 - 2002/12/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036832791&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036832791&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12413231

AN - SCOPUS:0036832791

VL - 27

SP - 636

EP - 638

JO - Operative Dentistry

JF - Operative Dentistry

SN - 0361-7734

IS - 6

ER -