SynthesisClinical oral investigations2025
Efficiency and limitations of polywave light-curing units in restorative dentistry: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. 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.
- Review
- A Narrative Review of the Material Properties, Clinical Efficacy, and Developmental Prospects of Bulk-Fill Resin-Based Composites.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2026Review
- Micro-CT evaluation of marginal and internal adaptation of composite resins using different application techniques.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Universal Bulk-Fill Composites: An Investigation into the Efficiency of Rapid Curing with Reversible Addition-Fragmentation-Chain Transfer (RAFT)-Mediated Polymerisation.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficiency and limitations of polywave light-curing units (LCUs) compared to monowave LCUs for the polymerization of resin-based composites in restorative dentistry. The primary outcomes assessed included the degree of conversion (DC), microhardness, and depth of cure (DoC). MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines across five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. In vitro studies comparing polywave and monowave LCUs in terms of polymerization outcomes were included. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the RoBDEMAT tool. Due to substantial methodological heterogeneity (I² >75%), a narrative synthesis was conducted in place of a meta-analysis.
resultsTwenty-six in vitro studies were included. Polywave LCUs achieved significantly higher degree of conversion (83.7-92%) than monowave LCUs (70-81%), particularly with TPO-containing composites (p < 0.05). Microhardness was greater in 15 studies, with bottom/top ratios often exceeding 0.85. Depth of cure reached 4.3 mm with polywave LCUs versus 3.6 mm with monowave devices (p < 0.001). Temperature rise was higher with polywave units (up to 12 °C), and color stability outcomes (ΔEab = 2.1-4.97) varied widely across materials, with no consistent advantage for polywave LCUs; differences were mainly attributed to composite formulation.
conclusionsPolywave LCUs enhance polymerization efficiency compared to monowave LCUs, especially for bulk-fill and photoinitiator-diverse composites. Nevertheless, their clinical use requires protocol optimization to manage irradiance variability and mitigate thermal risks. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This review highlights the importance of matching the spectral output of light-curing units (LCUs) with the photoinitiators used in composite resins. Polywave LCUs showed superior outcomes in degree of conversion, microhardness, and depth of cure especially in composites containing TPO or Ivocerin. However, their higher thermal emission and beam non-uniformity may pose clinical challenges. Selecting an appropriate LCU should consider the composite's photoinitiator system and cavity depth to avoid under-curing and ensure restoration longevity. These findings support a more tailored, evidence-based approach to light-curing in contemporary restorative dentistry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40668390What 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.