MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Irradiance Uniformity and Distribution from Dental Light Curing Units

2010· article· en· W1993218857 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Bengt Price, Frederick A. Rueggeberg, D. Labrie, Christopher M Felix

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrradianceOpticsMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PROBLEM: The irradiance from dental light-curing units (LCUs) is commonly reported as a single number, but this number does not properly describe the light output. PURPOSE: This study examined the irradiance uniformity and distribution from a variety of LCUs as well as the effect of different light guides. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five LCUs representing quartz-tungsten-halogen, plasma arc, and light emitting diode units were evaluated. One LCU was evaluated using two different light guides (Standard or Turbo style). The total power emitted from each LCU was measured and the irradiance calculated using conventional methods (I(CM)). In addition, a beam profiler was used to determine the optically active emitting area, the mean irradiance (I(BP)), the irradiance distribution, and the Top Hat Factor (THF). Five replications were performed for each test and compared using analysis of variance with Fisher's PLSD tests at a pre-set alpha of 0.05. RESULTS: The spatial distribution of the irradiance from LCUs was neither universally symmetrical nor was it uniformly distributed across the tip end. Significant differences in both the emitted power and THF were found among the LCUs. The THF values ranged from a high of 0.74 +/- 0.01 to a low of 0.32 +/- 0.01. Changing from a standard to a turbo light guide increased the irradiance, but significantly reduced beam homogeneity, reduced the total emitted power, and reduced the optical tip area by 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Using different light guides on the same LCU significantly affected the power output, irradiance values, and beam homogeneity. For all LCUs, irradiance values calculated using conventional methods (I(CM)) did not represent the irradiance distribution across the tip end of the LCU. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Irradiance values calculated using conventional methods assume power uniformity within the beam and do not validly characterize the distribution of the irradiance delivered from dental light curing units.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations89
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Esthetic and Restorative DentistrySame topicLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineFrench-language works237,207