ArticleBMC medical education2025
Evaluation of clinicians' use of fast-curing and budget light-curing units in Saudi Arabia.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLight-curing units (LCUs) are essential for polymerizing resin-based composites, and a lack of understanding will likely compromise the quality of the final restoration. The understanding and clinical application of LCU features—including the use of fast-curing modes and budget LCUs—require investigation. This study assesses the knowledge and practice patterns regarding LCU features among dental professionals.
methodsA self-administered questionnaire was distributed among specialized dentists in restorative dentistry, other dental specialists, general practitioners, and students/interns. The survey assessed participants’ knowledge and practices regarding LCU ergonomics, curing modes, use of budget LCUs, and their potential impact on restoration outcomes. It consisted of 23 main questions, in addition to 7 demographic and 4 eligibility questions. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Scheffé tests to compare knowledge and practice scores across groups (α = 0.05).
resultsA total of 338 questionnaires were completed (80.5% response rate). Specialized restorative dentists had significantly higher LCU knowledge scores (mean=64.31) compared to other specialists (48.84) and students/interns (53.27) (p<0.001). Clinical practice scores followed a similar trend (p=0.007). Notably, 33.4% of respondents were unsure if they were using a budget LCU, and 59.6% did not check the LCU irradiance of the lights used in their clinic. Only 4.2% measured the irradiance from the LCU daily.
conclusionSignificant gaps exist in the knowledge and practice about LCUs, particularly among non-restorative specialists and students. The widespread lack of awareness regarding budget LCUs and irradiance verification highlights a need for standardized education on LCU selection, curing modes, and routine output testing in clinical settings.
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.