MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302905119 · doi:10.1080/15459624.2016.1165822

The dental curing light: A potential health risk

2016· article· en· W2302905119 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Bengt Price, D. Labrie, Ellen Bruzell, David H. Sliney, Howard E. Strassler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Research and COVID-19
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnificationOpticsBlue lightDentistryMedicineBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceOrthodonticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Powerful blue-light emitting dental curing lights are used in dental offices to photocure resins in the mouth. In addition, many dental personnel use magnification loupes. This study measured the effect of magnification loupes on the "blue light hazard" when the light from a dental curing light was reflected off a human tooth. Loupes with 3.5x magnification (Design for Vision, Carl Zeiss, and Quality Aspirator) and 2.5x magnification (Design for Vision and Quality Aspirator) were placed at the entrance of an integrating sphere connected to a spectrometer (USB 4000, Ocean Optics). A model with human teeth was placed 40 cm away and in line with this sphere. The light guide tip of a broad-spectrum Sapphire Plus (Den-Mat) curing light was positioned at a 45° angle from the facial surface of the central incisor. The spectral radiant power reflected from the teeth was recorded five times with the loupes over the entrance into the sphere. The maximum permissible cumulative exposure times in an 8-hr day were calculated using guidelines set by the ACGIH. It was concluded that at a 40 cm distance, the maximum permissible cumulative daily exposure time to light reflected from the tooth was approximately 11 min without loupes. The weighted blue irradiance values were significantly different for each brand of loupe (Fisher's PLSD p < 0.05) and were up to eight times greater at the pupil than when loupes were not used. However, since the linear dimensions of the resulting images would be 2.5 to 3.5x larger on the retina, the image area was increased by the square of the magnification and the effective blue light hazard was reduced compared to without the loupes. Thus, although using magnification loupes increased the irradiance received at the pupil, the maximum cumulative daily exposure time to reflected light was increased up to 28 min. Further studies are required to determine the ocular hazards of a focused stare when using magnification loupes and the effects of other curing lights used in the dental office.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations37
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental HygieneSame topicDental Research and COVID-19French-language works237,207