ArticlePloS one2022
Power output from 12 brands of contemporary LED light-curing units measured using 2 brands of radiometers.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shrinkage Stress, Polymerization Kinetics, and Hardness of Light and Self-Cured Bulk-Fill Resin-Based Composites.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effect of the Design and Exposure Mode of Different Multiple-Peak Light-Curing Units on Light Emission, Temperature Rise, and Intraoral Access.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2026Article
- Effect of damage or contamination to the tips of 200 light-curing units.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Radiant Power of the Light Curing Units Used in Clinics at Governmental and Privates Dental Faculties.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven the increasing use of photo-activated resins in dentistry, dentists and researchers need a user-friendly dental radiometer to measure the power output from dental light-curing units (LCUs).
objectiveOur goal was to measure the accuracy of two brands of dental radiometers in reporting the power (mW) from twelve brands of contemporary LCUs compared to a 'gold standard' (GS) reference value obtained from an integrating sphere attached to a fiberoptic spectroradiometer.
methodsThe power output was measured from two units of 12 brands of LCUs, five times on the ''GS" system, five times on two Bluephase Meter II dental radiometers, and five times on two Mini Gig hand-held spectroradiometers. The emission spectrum was also recorded using the 'GS' integrating sphere. The power values reported by each meter were subjected to t-tests to compare the two examples of each LCU, and 3-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's post-hoc tests. Regression analyses were also performed to determine the relationship between the data from the hand-held radiometers and the 'GS' integrating sphere.
resultsThere was a large difference in the power values (mW) and the emission spectra from the 12 brands of LCUs on their standard-settings (p<0.001). Except for one LCU (Dental Spark @ 15.1%), the differences between the two LCUs of the same brand were less than 5.3% when measured using the 'GS' integrating sphere. Regression analyses showed a highly significant agreement between the power values reported from the two brands of radiometers and the 'GS' integrating sphere (R2 > 98%).
conclusionWe concluded that the power values reported from both brands of dental radiometers we tested were accurate, provided that the light source did not emit wavelengths of light that were beyond the radiometer's detection limit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.