MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402839071 · doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105375

The dark art of light curing in dentistry

2024· article· en· W4402839071 on OpenAlexafffund
Juliana Anany Gonzales Guarneri, Richard Bengt Price, Cristiane Maucoski, César Augusto Galvão Arrais

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dentistry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie UniversityCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsDentistryCuring (chemistry)Materials scienceMedicineComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to show that the commonly reported irradiance values that are quoted in most publications inadequately describe the light output from light curing units (LCUs). METHODS: The total spectral radiant power (mW) output from 12 contemporary LCUs was measured with a fiberoptic spectroradiometer and a calibrated integrating sphere. Five recordings were taken for each LCU and exposure mode. In addition, the irradiances (mW/cm²) delivered at 0-mm, 5-mm and 10-mm distances were recorded through a 6-mm diameter aperture and the radiant exposures (J/cm²) from the LCUs were calculated. Light beam profiles from the LCUs were recorded using a beam profiler, and the images were overlaid on a molar tooth to simulate a clinical setting. Data were analyzed using ANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The mean power outputs from the LCUs ranged from 380 to 2472 mW (p < 0.0001). The highest irradiance was recorded from the Cicada CV 215-G7 (3091 mW/cm² in its highest mode) and the lowest from the Radii Cal CX (731 mW/cm²). The emission spectra differed, even among the multi-peak and single-peak LCUs. Radiant exposures from the entire light tip ranged from 18.3 J/cm², Radii Cal CX, in its standard 25 s exposure mode to 3.9 J/cm² from the Monet Laser in a 3 s exposure setting. Half (50 %) of the measured irradiance values from the LCUs differed from the manufacturers' value by more than 10 %. There were significant differences in the impact of distance from the tip. The beam profiles visually highlighted the varying effects of distance from the LCU tip among different units. CONCLUSION: There were significant differences in the emission spectra, power outputs, tip diameters, irradiances, radiant exposures, and the effect distance from the light tips. These differences underline the importance of manufacturers and researchers correctly measuring and reporting the output from the LCU to ensure that research is reproducible and that patients receive acceptable dental restorations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This article alerts clinicians, researchers and journal editors that providing only the tip irradiance (radiant exitance) value from the LCU is no longer sufficient. Manufacturers and researchers should include information on the spectral radiant power, emission spectrum, tip diameters, and also the effect of distance on the irradiance and radiant exposure, beam profiles and tooth access information when describing an LCU.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.051
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of DentistrySame topicLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineFrench-language works237,207