Stability of the Light Output, Oral Cavity Tip Accessibility in Posterior Region and Emission Spectrum of Light-Curing Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the light output from six light-emitting diode dental curing lights after 25 consecutive light exposures without recharging the battery, tip accessibility in the posterior region, and light beam spread from light-curing units. METHODS: Irradiance, spectral peak, and radiant exposure were measured with the battery fully charged (Bluephase Style, ESPE Cordless, Elipar S10, Demi Ultra, Valo Cordless, and Radii-Cal) and monitored for 25 light exposures (each lasting 10 seconds). The tip diameter was measured to identify the beam size and the ability of the six light-curing units to irradiate all areas of the lower second molar in the standard output setting. RESULTS: Four curing lights delivered a single peak wavelength from 454 to 462 nm, and two (Bluephase Style and Valo Cordless) delivered multiple emission peaks (at 410 and 458 nm and 400, 450, and 460 nm, respectively). The irradiance and radiant exposure always decreased after 25 exposures by 2% to 8%, depending on the light unit; however, only ESPE Cordless, Valo Cordless, and Radii-Cal presented a statistical difference between the first and the last exposure. The tip diameter ranged from 6.77 mm to 9.40 mm. The Radii-Cal delivered the lowest radiant exposure and irradiance. This light was also unable to access all the teeth with the tip parallel to the occlusal surface of the tooth. CONCLUSION: Not all of the blue-emitting lights deliver the same emission spectra, and some curing lights delivered a lower irradiance (as much as 8% lower) after the 25th exposure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".