Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical performance of brackets cured with a high-intensity, light-emitting diode (LED) with a shorter curing time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients and a total of 680 brackets were examined using a randomized split-mouth design. The maxillary right and mandibular left quadrants were cured for 6 seconds with a high-intensity LED light (3200 mW/cm(2)) and the maxillary left and mandibular right quadrants were cured for 20 seconds with a standard-intensity LED light (1200 mW/cm(2)). Alternating patients had the quadrants inverted for the curing protocol. The number and date of each first-time bracket failure was recorded from 199 to 585 days posttreatment. RESULTS: The bracket failure rate was 1.18% for both curing methods. The proportion of bracket failure was not significantly different between curing methods (P = 1.000), genders (P = 1.000), jaws (P = .725), sides (P = .725), or quadrants (P = .547). Posterior teeth exhibited a greater proportion of failures (2.21%) relative to anterior teeth (0.49%), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = .065). CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in bond failure rates between the two curing methods. Both methods showed bond failure rates low enough to be considered clinically sufficient. The high-intensity LED light used with a shorter curing time may be considered an advantage due to the reduced chair time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ward et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: