Effect of thickness and shade of CAD/CAM composite on the light transmission from different light-curing units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thickness and shade of a restoration will affect the transmission of light from the light-curing unit (LCU). This study determined the power (mW), spectral radiant power (mW/nm), and beam profile of different LCUs through various thicknesses and shades of a CAD-CAM resin composite (BRAVA Block, FGM). Five thicknesses: 0.5; 0.75; 1.0; 1.5, and 2.0 mm, in three shades: Bleach; A2 and A3.5 of a CAD-CAM resin (n = 5). Two single-peak LCUs: EL, Elipar DeepCure-S (3M Oral Care); and OP, Optilight Max (Gnatus), and one multiple-peak LCU: VL, VALO Grand (Ultradent), were used. The LCUs were positioned touching the surface of the BRAVA Block. The power and emission spectrum were measured using a fiberoptic spectrometer attached to an integrating sphere, and the beam profiles using a laser beam profiler. The effect of the material thickness on the light attenuation coefficients was determined. VL and EL delivered more homogeneous beam profiles than OP. The type of the BRAVA Block had a significant effect on the transmitted power, and wavelengths of transmitted light (p < 0.001). There was an exponential reduction in the power and emission spectrum as the thickness of the BRAVA Block increased (p < 0.001). The light transmission through the A2 shade was least affected by the thickness (p < 0.001). The attenuation coefficient was higher for the violet light and higher for A3.5 than the A2 or Bleach shades. No violet light from the VL could be detected at the bottom of 2.0 mm of the BRAVA Block.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".