Irradiance from 12<scp>LED</scp>light curing units measured using 5 brands of dental radiometers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: ) from twelve brands of LCUs compared to a 'Gold Standard' (GS) reference obtained from a hand-held laboratory-grade radiometer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The irradiance was measured from two examples of twelve brands of previously used LCUs on two examples of five brands of dental radiometers. The emission spectrum was also obtained. Irradiance data from each brand of LCU against each meter was analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality. The irradiance values were subjected to a two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni tests for each LCU brand. Finally, a descriptive analysis was made using a 95% confidence interval around the mean irradiance. RESULTS: The power output from the LCUs ranged from 271 mW to 1005 mW. Among the tested radiometers, only the Bluephase Meter II could accurately report the irradiance from 11 out of the 12 brands of LCU evaluated in this study. When measured using the "GS" system, the mean irradiance values from the two examples of nine brands of previously used LCU were not always within ±10% of the irradiance values stated by the manufacturer. CONCLUSIONS: The mean irradiance values from 9 of the 12 brands of used LCUs were beyond ±10% of the irradiance values stated by the manufacturer. Only the Bluephase Meter II could accurately report the irradiance from 11 out of the 12 brands of LCU evaluated in this study. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: There was a wide range in the power output from the LCUs tested. It was impossible to accurately measure the irradiance from all the LCUs using the dental radiometers examined. However, dental radiometers should still be used in dental offices to monitor the light output from LCUs and verify that they are working correctly before they are used on patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".