A Blinded Comparative Study of Four Commercially Available LEDs and a Laser Light Curing Device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study determined the effectiveness of five light-curing units (LCUs; four light-emitting diode [LED] and one laser) used on different settings to photo-activate four conventional resin-based composites (RBCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 108 RBC specimens were photo-activated in a white Delrin mold representing a mesial-occlusal-distal (MOD) class II restoration in a molar tooth. The proximal boxes were 5 mm deep, and the mesial-distal length was 12 mm. Immediately after photo-curing, the RBC specimens were immersed in a solvent to remove the uncured materials, after which they were photographed and deidentified. A Research Electronic Data Capture survey was created using these images and sent to respondents who blindly assessed the ability of the various LCUs to photo-cure the MOD restorations. RESULTS: -test, Welch's one-way ANOVA, and Kruskal-Wallis rank test in the blinded survey data showed significant differences between the LED curing lights used for two 10-second cures and the laser curing light used for 1 second, and LED lights at lower settings. CONCLUSION: There was a significant difference in how the curing lights could photo-cure the RBCs used in this study. The laser curing light used for 1 second produced the worst results in all four RBCs.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".