Light curing procedures - performance, knowledge level and safety awareness among dentists.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate dentists' exposure to curing light and to obtain information about the dentists' knowledge on practical use and technical features of their curing lights as well as their safety awareness. METHODS: A pre-coded questionnaire was sent electronically to all dentists (n=1313) in the Public Dental Service (PDS) in Norway in 2015. RESULTS: The Response rate was 55.8%. The dentists spent on average 57.5% of their working days placing restorations, ranging from 1 to 30 (mean 7.7, SD 3.6) restorations per day. The average length of light curing one normal layer of composite was 27s. The longest individual mean curing time per day was about 100 times higher than that of the lowest. The mean curing time for lamps of the lower reported irradiances was similar to the time representing exceedance of international guidelines for limit values for blue light to the eyes. Almost one-third of the dentists used inadequate eye protection against blue light. The odds of using adequate eye protection were significantly higher among young dentists (p<0.01). The majority of the respondents (78.3%) were unaware of the irradiance value of their curing lights, thus rendering the curing time uncertain. More dentists in this group did not perform regular maintenance of their curing lights compared with all respondents (17.1% vs. 3.3%, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed considerable variations among Norwegian dentists in the Public Dental Service with respect to performance of light curing of restorations, safety awareness and technical knowledge of the curing light. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The questionnaire study identifies specific knowledge gaps among Norwegian dentists with regard to curing lights and use of personal protection. Today's dependence on technology in dentistry necessitates that the operator possesses knowledge of essential technical specifications and safe use of devices and instruments routinely used in dental treatment.

Side effects of external tooth bleaching: a multi-centre practice-based prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The study was performed to assess the risk of at-home and in-office bleaching procedures, and to recognise potential predictors for side effects. DESIGN: Multi-centre, questionnaire-based prospective study with follow-ups at around 14 days and around one year post-treatment. SETTING: General practices and university clinics during the years 2007-2009 in Scandinavia. SUBJECTS: Patients with tooth bleaching as part of the treatment plan. RESULTS: The prevalence of experienced tooth sensitivity at first follow-up was independent of bleaching procedure (at-home = 50.3% [n = 143]; in-office = 39.3% [n = 28]; p >0.05; 95% CI [OR]: 0.198-1.102) whereas prevalence of gingival irritation was higher after in-office treatment (at-home = 14.0%; in-office = 35.7%; p <0.05) (mean age: 37.3 years; 73.7% women; n = 171). At the second follow-up, two and three patients reported side effects attributed to the bleaching treatment in the at-home and in-office groups, respectively. Predictors for side effects were tooth sensitivity, surface loss and gingivitis when observed at inclusion. Treatment-related predictors were bleaching concentration and contact between tray and gingiva. CONCLUSIONS: Bleaching treatment, irrespective of method, caused a high prevalence of side effects. Patients associated with the predictors at inclusion mentioned above should be notified of the risk for side effects and treated only if bleaching is indicated based on a proper diagnosis.