Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40758212›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2025

Comparison of dental curing units and output modes regarding radiant flux, tip diameter, radiant emittance, scattering, and penetration depth.

Bora Korkut, Cevdet Can Saygili, Naci Murat, Ezgi Tuter Bayraktar, Rafael S Beolchi, Bilge Tarcin

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Bora KorkutDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Türkiye. bora.korkut@marmara.edu.tr.
Cevdet Can SaygiliDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Naci MuratDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Türkiye.
Ezgi Tuter BayraktarDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Rafael S BeolchiUniversidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Bilge TarcinDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare radiant flux, radiant emittance, light scattering, and penetration depth of high-power and low-power dental LED curing units (LCUs) and different output modes. MATERIALS AND

methodsTen different, brand-new dental LCUs and different output modes were tested by a laboratory-grade spectroradiometer to evaluate radiant flux and spectral emission. Two radiant emittance values were calculated using the radiant flux values for each curing unit/output mode, together with manufacturer's tip diameter or measured internal tip diameter. Light source width, scattering, total penetration depth (TPD), and main penetration depth (MPD) were also assessed through collected light beam images using Rhodamine B solution. Image processing was done using the Photoshop software to measure the distances. The deemed significance was set at < 0.050 for the statistical analyses.

resultsMeasured internal tip diameters were different than stated diameters for all LCUs except Valo X. Valo X Xtra Power mode delivered the highest radiant flux (2704 ± 5 mW), followed by Valo Grand Xtra Power mode (2576 ± 6 mW)(P <.001). The lowest radiant flux was from D Light Pro Low Power mode (449 ± 9 mW)(P <.001). Calculated radiant emittances based on the manufacturer's stated and measured internal tip diameters were up to 27.6% lower than the stated radiant emittances. A positive correlation was observed for TPD, light source width, and radiant emittance (P <.001). Scattering had negative correlations with TPD (P =.014), radiant emittance (P =.003), and tip diameter (P =.007).

conclusionsThe radiant emittance can deviate from the manufacturer's stated values by up to 27.6%. Regular spectroradiometer measurements can be beneficial in this regard to adjust the curing time and thereby calibrate the clinical curing dose. Greater penetration depth can be expected when using LCUs with greater radiant emittance and tip diameter, while the curing mode was considered ineffective on the scattering pattern. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Effective light-curing is a complicated clinical procedure in dentistry requiring many parameters. There might be some deviations in these features from the manufacturer's stated values. Clinicians should select the LCUs by considering the radiant flux, tip diameter, radiant emittance, light scattering, and penetration depth features to succeed in clinical restorative procedures.

Indexed as

Curing Lights, DentalEquipment DesignLightMaterials TestingScattering, RadiationCuring unitRadiant emittanceRadiant fluxScatteringTip diameter

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.