of resin-based composites depends on the delivery of adequate total
energy, which may be operator dependent. Aim To determine the effect of
interincisal opening, cavity location and operator experience on the
total energy delivered to simulated cavity preparation sites.
cohorts were included: junior dental nurses, senior dental nurses and
qualified dentists (N=5, each cohort). Each operator (participant)
followed the same procedure and light-cured two simulated restorations
in a MARC patient simulator using a Demi light-curing unit for 20
seconds in each of the following situations: left upper second molar
(UL7), interincisal opening at both 25 mm and 45 mm; upper central
incisor (UR1), interincisal opening at 45mm. The light energy delivered
by each operator in each situation was recorded. Five readings for each
operator were taken at each interincisal distance. Statistical
comparisons of delivered energy (J/cm2) between interincisal openings,
location and groups in the total energy delivered were performed using
the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test: alpha = 0.05.
total energy was delivered to the posterior cavity at 25mm (12.0 +/-
5.3 J/cm2) than at 45mm (16.9 +/- 5.6 J/cm2) by all operators (P <
0.05). At 45 mm, less total energy was delivered to the posterior cavity
compared to the anterior cavity (25.1 +/- 7.4 J/cm2; P < 0.05).
There was no statistically significant difference between junior nurses
and qualified dentists (P > 0.05) but there was a significant
difference in the total energy delivered between senior nurses (20.1 +/-
7.8 J/cm2) and junior nurses (17.5 +/- 7.6 J/cm2) and between senior
nurses and qualified dentists (16.6 +/- 8.7 J/cm2) (P < 0.05).
mouth opening, location of the cavity and operator experience affected
the total energy delivered to cavities in a simulated clinical