. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Nov 1.

Published in final edited form as: Angle Orthod. 2015 Mar 11;85(6):1064–1069. doi: 10.2319/080714-556.1

Table 4. Clinical Studies of Orthodontic Bond Failure Rates With Different Curing Lights.

Study	n	Observation Time	Curing Light	Light Type	Light Intensity (mW/cm²)	Curing Time (s)	Bond Failure Rate, %	Conclusion
Pettemerides et al. 2004²³	20	6 mo	3M Ortholux XT	Halogen	300	10	3.41	No significant difference
Pettemerides et al. 2004²³	20	6 mo	Apollo 95E	Plasma	900	3	3.41	No significant difference
Caccafiesta et al. 2004²⁷	30	12 mo	3M Ortholux XT	Halogen	480	20	4	No significant difference
Caccafiesta et al. 2004²⁷	30	12 mo	AO PAC system	Plasma	1250	5	7	No significant difference
Signorelli et al. 2006²⁴	25	1.1 y	3M Ortholux XT	Halogen	400	20	4.90	No significant difference
Signorelli et al. 2006²⁴	25	1.1 y	3M Ortholite	Plasma	2000	60	4.90	No significant difference
Krishnaswamy et al. 2007²²	30	15 mo	Astralis3, Ivoclar	Halogen	n/a	40	8.06	No significant difference
Krishnaswamy et al. 2007²²	30	15 mo	LED Max4, Heraeus	LED	n/a	10	7.01	No significant difference
Pandis et al. 2007²⁶	25	15 mo	3M Ortholite	Plasma	2000	9	2.80	LED light had 2.5 times higher bond failure rate
Pandis et al. 2007²⁶	25	15 mo	Satelec mini LED	LED	2000	9	6.70	LED light had 2.5 times higher bond failure rate
Koupis et al. 2008²¹	30	9 mo	3M Ortholux XT	Halogen	n/a	20	3.33	No significant difference
Koupis et al. 2008²¹	30	9 mo	3M Ortholux LED	LED	n/a	10	5.00	No significant difference
Mirabella et al. 2008²⁵	34	8.9 mo	3M Ortholux XT	Halogen	n/a	20	3.29	No significant difference
Mirabella et al. 2008²⁵	34	8.9 mo	3M Ortholux LED	LED	n/a	10	2.60	No significant difference
Ward et al. 2014	34	Average of 11.7 mo	Valo Ortho LED	LED	1200	20	1.18	No significant difference
Ward et al. 2014	34	Average of 11.7 mo	Valo Ortho LED	LED	3200	6	1.18	No significant difference