ArticleBMC oral health2025
Effect of damage or contamination to the tips of 200 light-curing units.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Knowledge and Practice Related to Light-Curing and Resin-Based Composites Polymerization.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2026Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe light-curing unit (LCU) has become a vital piece of dental equipment that must be correctly maintained. This study investigated the impact of contamination and physical damage to the light tip on the power and radiant emittance values from old and new LCUs. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo investigators assessed 200 LCUs in dental clinics. The extent of contamination and physical damage to the light-curing unit (LCU) tips was recorded using a scale ranging from 0 to 8, where 0 indicates the absence of damage or contamination, and 8 represents severe damage or contamination. Then, the radiant emittance and power values of the LCU tip were measured using a digital radiometer (Bluephase meter II; Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein). LCUs that were more than five years old were classified as old. Spearman correlation coefficient was used to determine the relationship between the condition of the LCU and radiant emittance/power (p = 0.05).
resultsThere were no significant differences in the percent reduction of the power and radiant emittance from the values reported by the manufacturers, as well as the presence of contamination or physical damage scores between old and relatively new light-curing tips (p > 0.05). The mean ± standard deviation percentage reductions in power and radiant emittance from the manufacturer's stated values were 19.2 ± 17.63% and 3.9 ± 16.49%, respectively. Contamination and physical damage had significant positive correlations with the reduction in the power (r = 0.22070, p = 0.0017 and r = 0.27422, p < 0.0001, respectively) and the reduction in the radiant emittance (r = 0.28626, p < 0.0001 and r = 0.36650, p < 0.0001). Increased contamination and physical damage scores corresponded to greater percent reductions in the power and radiant emittance (p < 0.05).
conclusionsContamination and physical damage to the LCU can negatively impact the light output from LCUs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: To ensure optimal performance, dentists should regularly monitor the output of their LCUs and examine the devices for any signs of physical damage or contamination.
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.