Effect of Battery Discharge on the Output from Budget Light-Curing Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives The manufacturers of budget light-curing units (LCUs) often claim to provide high-quality units that are equivalent to LCUs from major manufacturers. This study investigated the effects of battery discharge on the light output from different budget LCUs compared to a major manufacturer. Materials and Methods Two brands of budget LCUs (LY-A180 and LED-CL) were compared to a control LCU from a major manufacturer (3M). The LCUs were fully charged, and their light outputs were measured over one battery discharge cycle using repeated 10-second exposures at a 0-mm distance. Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni post-hoc test. Results The budget LCUs delivered fluctuating light output values. In their first exposure, the budget LCUs delivered between 205 and 444 mW power, an irradiance between 533 and 1154 mW/cm2, and a radiant exposure between 5.3 and 11.5 J/cm2. As the number of exposures increased, their light output decreased between 24 and 81%, while the control LCU showed only a 4.9% decrease in power and irradiance. The light outputs from the budget LCUs were significantly less than the control LCU, and they were significantly from each other. Conclusion The budget LCUs tested could not maintain their power, irradiance, and radiant exposure output values as the battery discharged. This supports the recommendation that clinicians should be very cautious when using budget LCUs in their clinical practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".