ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Evaluation of Radiant Power of the Light Curing Units Used in Clinics at Governmental and Privates Dental Faculties.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of light output from light-curing units used in a public oral health service in Brazil.Brazilian dental journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To evaluate the radiant power of the light cure units (LCUs) in relation to their type, radiant exitance, number of years in clinical use, and condition of LCUs tips in governmental and public clinics in Dental Faculties in Sana'a City. Materials and Methods: LCUs were collected from different colleges at Sanaa City, Yemen, then LCU data as type, clinical age (<1 year, between 1-5 and ˃ 5-years), tip condition was visually inspected for damage and adhering debris, and the radiant exitance values of the tested LCUs. Radiant exitance values were subcategorized into three groups: <400, 400-850, and >850 mW/cm², labeled as inadequate, marginal, and adequate radiant exitances, respectively. A Woodpecker radiometer was used with a mode lasting of 20 seconds was used with each LCU. Descriptive statistics of the different parameters were evaluated with SPSS version 25. One-way ANOVA and Mann-Whitney tests were performed to determine the mean difference between the groups with a significance value of ˂ 0.05 was considered. Results: Two hundred twenty-three LCUs were surveyed, and the majority were Light-emitting diode (LED). Forty-nine (21.9%), 117 (52.4%), 57 (25.6%) recorded lesser than, 400-850, and more than 850 mW/cm², respectively. Radiant exitances of < year-old units were found to be higher than those of units used for ˃ 5 years with significant differences (p=0.001). The ANOVA test showed significant differences between the radiant exitance with clinical age and LCU tip conditions and a strong correlation p ˃ 0.050. Conclusion: LED curing lights were the most used in the tested Dental Faculties. More than half of the used LCU offered sufficient radiant exitance. Clinical age, the presence or absence of composite buildups, and damage to curing tips showed significantly affect radiant exitance values.
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.