I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Dr. Alex’s letter. Dr. Alex has expressed his beliefs, and I respect them. I agree that no one knows the long-term effects of high-intensity resin curing. Clinical Research Associates’ well-controlled study that I cited is the only real-world study to date. Using well-proven restorative resins cured with high- or low-intensity curing lights, the study shows no clinical differences in restoration quality over one year as placed by practicing dentists in day-to-day practice. The study has now been observed for 18 months with the same results.
At this time, tens of thousands of resin restorations have been cured with high-intensity plasma-arc curing lights by dentists around the world. Additionally, high-intensity lasers have been used for over a decade to cure resin. We are still awaiting any major negative clinical reports. How long do we have to wait to prove the value of this concept? If we wait only a short time, the slight polymerization shrinkage of resins will be reduced even more, and the entire concept will be a moot subject.
I agree that the profession needs to watch this and many other concepts carefully to determine long-term results. In the meantime, there must be more significant challenges to which we can devote our attention than the yet unseen, but alleged problems with high-intensity curing lights.
If there is a legitimate clinical problem with a technique or material, I am well-known to be among the first to announce that problem. In the meantime, relative to high-intensity curing lights, a long-used phrase from the CRA Newsletter still overrides theory and in-vitro studies: "Clinical Success Is the Final Test!
