PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2012; 06(03): 311-317
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698966
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

The effects of bluephase LED light on fibroblasts

Ana Ivanišević Malčić
1   Department of Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb
,
Ivan Pavičić
2   Institute for medical research and occupational health, Zagreb
,
Ivančica Trošić
2   Institute for medical research and occupational health, Zagreb
,
Paris Simeon
1   Department of Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb
,
Davor Katanec
3   Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb
,
Silvana Jukić Krmek
1   Department of Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
30. September 2019 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
  als PDF herunterladen Lizenzen und Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of Bluephase light emitting diode (LED) light on cell viability, colony-forming ability and proliferation in V79 cell culture and to determine how much the temperature of the nutrient medium rose.

Methods: The investigation included a low (L), soft start (S) and high (H) illumination mode for 20, 40 and 80 seconds. The viability was determined by the trypan blue exclusion test, colony-forming ability by counting colonies 7 days after exposure and cell proliferation by the cell counts on 5 postexposure days. The temperature change during illumination was recorded (0.1˚C sensitivity).

Results:In each experimental condition, 90-95% of the cells were viable, which was in the same range as the controls. Colony-forming ability was not found to be significantly lower (P<.05). A significant decrease in proliferation was recorded on the 4th post-exposure day with S and H irrespective of time, on the 3rd day with S for 80 s and H for 40 and 80 s, and with S and H for 80 s on the 2nd day (P<.05).The temperature rise was significant with S (P<.05) and H (P<.05), irrespective of exposure duration.SL=78.43%, G=66.65% and P=67.95%. Comparing the %SMHC promoted by 5 soft drinks, SL = C > CL > P = G (P<.05). There was not significant correlation between %SMHC and the other variables tested for the five drinks (P><.05)

Conclusions:Dependent on total energy density, LED blue light affects the mitotic activity of cells in its path to a certain extent. Altered mitotic activity was not noted with illumination at the low power mode (intensity of 421.7 ±1.1 mW/cm2). The greatest temperature rise was 8.3 ˚C and occurred at the highest intensity and exposure duration. (Eur J Dent 2012;6:311-317)

Key words

Tooth erosion - Carbonated beverages - Dental enamel
 

  • References

  • 1 Vargas MA, Cobb DS, Schmit JL. Polymerization of composite resins: argon laser vs. conventional light. Oper Dent 1998;23:87-93.
  • 2 Tarle Z, Knežević A, Demoli N, Meniga A, Šutalo J, Unterbrink G, Ristić M, Pichler G. Comparison of Composite curing parameters: effects of light source and curing mode on conversion, temperature rise and polimerization shrinkage. Oper Dent 2006;31-2:219-226.
  • 3 Jandt KD, Mills RW, Blackwell GB and Ashworth S. Depth of cure and compressive strength of dental composites cured with blue light emitting diodes (LEDs). Dent Mater 2000;16:41-47.
  • 4 Krämer N, Lohbauer U, García-Godoy F, Frankenberger R. Light curing of resin-based composites in the LED era. Am J Dent 2008;21:135-142.
  • 5 Bruzell Roll EM, Jacobsen N, Hensten-Pettersen A. Health hazards associated with curing light in the dental clinic. Clin Oral Invest 2004;8:113-117.
  • 6 Wataha JC, Lewis JB, Lockwood PE, Hsu S, Messer RL, Rueggeberg FA, Bouillaguet S. Blue Light Differentially Modulates Cell Survival and Growth. J Dent Res 2004;83:104-108.
  • 7 Wataha JC, Lockwood PE, Lewis JB, Rueggeberg FA, Messer RLW. Biological effects of blue light from dental curing units. Dent Mater 2004;20:150–157.
  • 8 Knežević A, Tarle Z, Meniga A, Šutalo J, Pichler G. Influence of light intensity from different curing units upon composite temperature rise. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:362-367.
  • 9 Krmek SJ, Trošić I, Pavičić I, Keros J, Simeon P, Malčić A, Mehičić GP. Dose- and Mode-dependent effect of halogen dental curing blue light on the V79-cell line. Coll Antropol 2008;32:913-918.
  • 10 Kaup M, Ramb HJ, Dammaschke T, Ott K. Temperaturentwicklung im Pulpakavum bei Herstellung von provisorischen Versorgungen. Deutsche Zahnärztliche Zeitschrift 2000;55:180-182.
  • 11 Stahl F, Ashworth SH, Jandt KD, Mills RW. Light emitting diode (LED) polymerization of dental composites: flexural properties and polymerization potential. Biomaterials 2000;21:1379-1385.
  • 12 Yoon TH, Lee YK, Lim BS, Kim C-W. Degree of polymerization of resin composites by different light sources. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:1165-1173.
  • 13 Yap AU, Soh MS. Curing efficacy of a new generation high power LED lamp. Oper Dent 2005;30:758-763.
  • 14 Caughman WF, Rueggeberg FA, Curtis JW. Clinical guidelines for photocuring restorative resins. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126:1280-1286.
  • 15 Freshney RI. Cytotoxicity, Protocol 21.1. In Freshney RI, editor. Culture of animal cells. A manual of basic technique. 4th ed. New York: Wiley-Liss Publication; 2000. p. 330-332.
  • 16 Bluephase - Operating instructions, IvoclarVivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstei
  • 17 Ulbricht Sphere – Operating instructions, Gigahertz Optik, Puchheim, German
  • 18 International Organization for Standardization. Biological evaluation of medical devices. Part 5. Tests for cytotoxicity: in vitro methods. In: ISO 10993/EN 30993. 1st ed. Genève; 1992.
  • 19 Paul J. Cell Lines: Cloning Cells. In Paul J, editor. Cell and Tissue Culture. 4th ed. Edinburgh: E. S. Livingstone LTD; 1970. p. 234-242.
  • 20 Freshney RI. Quantitation. In Freshney RI, editor. Culture of animal cells. A manual of basic technique. 4th ed. New York: Wiley-Liss Publication; 2000. p. 319-323.
  • 21 Spagnuolo G, Annunziata M, Rengo S. Cytotoxicity and oxidative stress caused by dental adhesive systems cured with halogen and LED lights. Clin Oral Investig 2004;8:81-85.
  • 22 Knežević A, Željezic D, Kopjar N, Tarle Z. Influence of curing mode intensities on cell culture cytotoxicity/genotoxicity. Am J Dent 2009;22:43-48.
  • 23 Dogan A, Hubbezoglu I, Dogan OM, Bolayir G, Demir H. Temperature rise induced by various light curing units through human dentin. Dent Mater J 2009;28:253-260.
  • 24 Atai M, Motevasselian F. Temperature rise and degree of photopolymerization conversion of nanocomposites and conventional dental composites. Clin Oral Investig 2009;3:309-316.
  • 25 Sigusch BW, Völpel A, Braun I, Uhl A, Jandt KD. Influence of different light curing units on the cytotoxicity of various dental composites. Dent Mater 2007;23:1342-1348.
  • 26 Knezevic A, Zeljezic D, Kopjar N, Tarle Z. Cytotoxicity of composite materials polymerized with LED curing units. Oper Dent 2008;33-1:23-30.
  • 27 Beriat NC, Ertan AA, Canay S, Gurpinar A, Onur MA. Effect of different polymerization methods on the cytotoxicity of dental composites. Eur J Dent 2010;4:287-292.
  • 28 Sigusch BW, Pflaum T, Völpel A, Schinkel M, Jandt KD. The influence of various light curing units on the cytotoxicity of dental adhesives. Dent Mater 2009;25:1446-1452.
  • 29 Yap AU, Saw TY, Cao T, Ng MM. Composite cure and pulpcell cytotoxicity associated with LED curing lights. Oper Dent 2004;29:92-99.
  • 30 Schattenberg A, Lichtenberg D, Stender E, Willershausen B, Ernst CP. Minimal exposure time of different LED-curing devices. Dent Mater 2008;24:1043-1049.