Effect of Moving the Tip of the Light Curing Unit on the Irradiance Value Delivered
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective To determine the effect of differences in the distances and radial positions of the tips of Light‐Curing Units (LCU) on the irradiance values delivered. Materials and Methods Four LCUs —Valo X, Emitter A, CuringPen , and Pinkwave were tested at different distances from the tip (0, 2, 4, 6, 8 mm) and radial displacements (2 and 4 mm East, West, North, South). The radiant power ( mW ) and emission spectrum ( mW /nm) were measured using an integrating sphere with a 4 mm aperture. Calibrated irradiance beam profiles were recorded across the tip using a laser beam analyzer. Data were analyzed with a two‐way ANOVA at a significance level of 5%. Results Radial displacement significantly reduced the irradiance values delivered from all four LCUs ( p < 0.05). At 4 mm, the mean irradiance value was below 1000 mW /cm 2 for Emitter A (256 mW/cm 2 ), CuringPen (573 mW/cm 2 ), and Valo X (955 mW/cm 2 ), but not for the Pinkwave (1157 mW /cm 2 ). At the 2 and 4 mm distance from the tip, the Valo X delivered consistent mean irradiance values at both the center and radial positions (2 mm: 1120 mW /cm 2 and 1089 mW /cm 2 ; 4 mm: 979 mW /cm 2 and 945 mW /cm 2 , p > 0.05). The Valo X emitted the most homogeneous beam profile, irrespective of the distance. Conclusion Variations of 2 or 4 mm in the radial tip position negatively affected irradiance values from the LCUs tested. Clinical Significance The radial position and LCU choice can significantly affect the irradiance delivered.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".