In‐vitro pulpal temperature increases when photo‐curing <scp>bulk‐fill resin‐based</scp> composites using laser or light‐emitting diode light curing units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the in vitro pulpal temperature rise (ΔT) within the pulp chamber when low- and high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites are photo-cured using laser or contemporary light curing units (LCUs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The light output from five LCUs was measured. Non-retentive Class I and V cavities were prepared in one upper molar. Two T-type thermocouples were inserted into the pulp chamber. After the PT values reached 32°C under simulated pulp flow (0.026 mL/min), both cavities were restored with: Filtek One Bulk Fill (3 M), Filtek Bulk Fill Flow (3 M), Tetric PowerFill (Ivoclar Vivadent), or Tetric PowerFlow (Ivoclar Vivadent). The tooth was exposed as follows: Monet Laser (1 and 3 s), PowerCure (3 and 20 s), PinkWave (3 and 20 s), Valo X (5 and 20 s) and SmartLite Pro (20 s). The ΔT data were subjected to one-way ANOVA followed by Scheffe's post hoc test. RESULTS: Monet 1 s (1.9 J) and PinkWave 20 s (30.1 J) delivered the least and the highest amount of energy, respectively. Valo X and PinkWave used for 20 s produced the highest ΔT values (3.4-4.1°C). Monet 1 s, PinkWave 3 s, PowerCure 3 s (except FB-Flow) and Monet 3 s for FB-One and TP-Fill produced the lowest ΔT values (0.9-1.7°C). No significant differences were found among composites. CONCLUSIONS: Short 1- to 3-s exposures produced acceptable temperature rises, regardless of the composite. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The energy delivered to the tooth by the LCUs affects the temperature rise inside the pulp. The short 1-3 s exposure times used in this study delivered the least amount of energy and produced a lower temperature rise. However, the RBC may not have received sufficient energy to be adequately photo-cured.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".