ReviewBDJ open2026
Light-curing units in restorative dentistry: a clinically oriented narrative review of performance, selection, and emerging optical functions.
Review in BDJ open, 2026. 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.
- Polymerization shrinkage and stress of highly filled flowable resin composites used to perform definitive restorations.Clinical oral investigations · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo synthesize current evidence on dental light-curing units (LCUs), focusing on their radiometric performance, clinical selection criteria, and emerging optical functionalities.
methodsThis narrative review was conducted in accordance with the SANRA recommendations. A structured search of PubMed/MEDLINE was performed to identify publications addressing the technological evolution of light-curing units, the parameters guiding device selection, clinical optimization and safety considerations, as well as the integration of fluorescence, transillumination and beam-shaping adjunctive features within contemporary systems.
resultsLED LCUs have become the clinical standard, evolving from monowave to polywave devices to better match both Norrish type II and type I photoinitiators. Across technologies, the effectiveness of curing depends on the delivered radiant exposure, spectral compatibility, beam homogeneity and effective tip diameter rather than the manufacturer-reported irradiance. Clinical determinants (distance, angulation, maintenance, battery state and training) strongly modulate the delivered energy. Thermal and ocular hazards must be addressed through controlled protocols and protective measures. Multifunctional LCUs integrating fluorescence-aided identification and transillumination functions and interchangeable tips may support diagnosis and workflow optimization, but independent evidence remains limited.
conclusionsCuring should be approached as controlled energy delivery. Reliability depends on the radiant exposure, spectral compatibility and beam geometry rather than the nominal irradiance. Third-generation polywave LED LCUs appear to be the most versatile reference option for routine practice, particularly when the photoinitiator system of the material is unknown or includes Norrish type I initiators. The clinical value of integrated diagnostic and beam-shaping functions remains to be independently validated.
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.