Aim: This study compared the effect of seven different disposable cross-infection control sleeves on the total energy delivered (J/cm2) by four different dental light-curing units (LCUs).
Methods: Four LCUs and seven disposable sleeves (six proprietary brands and a general-purpose cellophane wrap) were used. Anterior and posterior tooth position was included as a third factor. Total energy delivered was measured for each LCU without a sleeve (control) and with each sleeve and for each tooth position. Curing time was 10 seconds, as recommended by the LCU manufacturers. Measurements were taken 10 times for each sleeve/LCU/tooth position and means (SD) calculated. Data were analysed using three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The null hypothesis was that none of the sleeves would, at a 0.1% level, significantly affect the total energy delivered.
Results: All sleeves significantly reduced the total energy delivered (P < 0.001). Cellophane wrap (cling film) had the smallest effect on total energy. Total energy delivered was most strongly influenced by tooth position and LCU model.
Conclusions: Sleeves significantly reduce the total energy delivered compared to unsleeved LCUs, but to a degree that may not be clinically important. Cling film reduced total energy delivered to a significantly lesser extent than did proprietary bands of sleeve. In order to determine adequacy of delivered total energy, sleeved LCUs should be tested prior to clinical use.