Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 22, 2021
Decision Letter - Zhiyuan Zhu, Editor
Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

PONE-D-21-40118Light Output from 12 Brands of Contemporary LED Light-Curing Units Measured Using 2 Brands of RadiometersPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Price,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 25 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zhiyuan Zhu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

[The authors wish to thank the manufacturers for the loan of their Bluephase Meter II and the Mini Gig radiometers for this study. This study was supported by a travel grant provided by MITACS award IT26826 for C. Maucoski and an internal research fund grant from the Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University. The study was also supported by grant provided by Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES grant # 88881.622852/2021-01).]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

[The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Cristiane Maucoski is a graduate student from Brazil. She received a travel grant provided by a MITACS award IT26826 for C. Maucoski and an internal research fund grant from the Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University. The study was also supported by grant provided by Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES grant # 88881.622852/2021-01).  

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: ***Please download the attachment and ignore the following words.***

1.

In citation,

29.Worthington HV, Khangura S, Seal K, Mierzwinski-Urban M, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, et al. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;8:CD005620. Epub 20210813. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005620.pub3. PubMed PMID: 34387873; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC8407050.

There’s your sentences:

M E T H O D S

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

For the outcome of efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dental composite resin with dental amalgam restorations in permanent posterior teeth (dating back to 1946). We excluded studies that had less than a three-year followup period.

Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth . This article written in 2021,but the cited literature’s date is too old, which I think is inappropriate, and I suggest you cite another references.

2.

As the LCU usage time increasing, the attenuation of the radiant output should also be taken into account.

3.

The effect of voltage on light intensity should be considered. For example, a 100% battery will produce the highest voltage intensity. A battery with a 10% charge will produce a smaller voltage.

In clinical, it is impossible for us to keep the LCU at 100% power all the time.

4.

The following sentence might be a sick sentence:  For LCU units #1, the following lights showed percentage differences beyond 10%: Dental Spark, SDI Radii Plus and Woodpecker LED.B. For LCU units #2, these lights showed percentage differences beyond 10%: Dental Spark, SDI Radii Plus, Woodpecker LED. B and Woodpecker LED.D. 

5.

Did you consider the effect of temperature on the test during the experiment?

6.

The photoinitiator system is composed of photoinitiator and co-initiator, which plays a decisive role in the photocuring rate of the material. The most commonly used photoinitiator is camphoroquinone (CQ, camphoroquinone), the addition amount is usually 0.05%-1% (mass fraction). Camphorquinone absorbs blue light in the range of 400-500 nm, with a maximum absorption peak at 470 nm.

The entire article focuses on the radiated power of LCUs. I think the peaks of each spectrum are the ones to focus on.

More attention should be paid to clinical practice. What we want is the curing speed and depth, not the rigid value of radiation power.

Reviewer #2: The authors measured the emitted power of 12 brands of contemporary light-curing units using two different brands of dental radiometers (Bluephase Meter II and Mini Gig) and compared to a "GOLD STANDARD" fiberoptic spectroradiometer (Ocean Insight) in order to evaluate the accuracy and precision of measured power value of the dental radiometers. The authors concluded that the radiometers were not attempting to measure wavelengths beyond their design specifications, the two brands of dental radiometers tested were accurate and precise. These findings will be of interest to dental practitioners, as well as researchers in the field.

I have only one concern;

1. Page 9, 2nd paragraph of Introduction: "If these light-cured resins are not sufficiently photocured

they may not reach their intended properties[13, 14], the economic impact of millions of

inadequately photopolymerized RBC restorations failing earlier than expected and requiring

retreatment is enormous." Since this is the first time you use "RBC", the authors should not use abbreviation, but describe "resin-based composite (RBC)".

********** 

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Reviewers comments .doc
Revision 1

February 24, 2022

PLOSOne

Dr. Zhiyuan Zhu

Southwest University

CHINA

Dear Dr. Zhu:

RE: PONE-D-21-40118 ‘Light Output from 12 Brands of Contemporary LED Light Curing Units Measured Using 2 Brands of Radiometers’

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revision to our manuscript to PLOS One.

The purpose of the article is to alert your readers to five important points:

1. Using a malfunctioning or an inadequate dental curing light has an economic impact estimated to cost billions of dollars annually.

2. Dental curing lights should be tested regularly.

3. The Bluephase Meter II can accurately measure the power from most dental curing lights and should be used by dentists

4. If the researcher cannot afford and cannot access optics laboratory equipment, the Mini Gig radiometer should be used. This will provide the power, spectral radiant power and the emission spectrum.

We have uploaded a clean and a tracked version, but to answer your reviewer’s specific comments:

1. We apologize for any confusion. Dr. Cristiane Maucoski is from Brazil. She received a Globalink grant of $6,000 from MITACS to come to Canada. The money was not specific to the research presented in the manuscript, but without the MITACS Globalink support she could not have come to Canada. As such, we believe that the following ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ statements are now correct. The authors wish to thank the manufacturers for the loan of their Bluephase Meter II and the Mini Gig radiometers for this study. Dr. Maucoski’s visit to Canada was supported by grants from the Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES grant # 88881.622852/2021-01) and by a MITACS Globalink award IT26826. This study was also supported by an internal research grant from the Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University, Canada.

2. To address the concerns that the 2021 Cochrane review was too old, we have added additional references and reworded the paragraph. However, the meaning is still the same, RBCs do not last as long as they should. Why?

This may explain why a Cochrane review published in 2021 reported that direct resin-based composite (RBC) restorations placed in posterior teeth have almost double the failure rate of amalgam restorations[31]. Several previous publications have reported higher failure rates for RBCs [18, 32] and that the median longevity of posterior RBCs is less than 7 years [33, 34].

3. To address the concern that as the LCU usage time increasing, the attenuation of the radiant output should also be taken into account. And The effect of voltage on light intensity should be considered. For example, a 100% battery will produce the highest voltage intensity. A battery with a 10% charge will produce a smaller voltage.

We addressed this when we wrote ‘The LCUs were recharged after every 5 exposures to ensure that their batteries were always adequately charged.’

4. To address the concern that For LCU units #1, the following lights showed percentage differences beyond 10%: Dental Spark, SDI Radii Plus and Woodpecker LED.B. For LCU units #2, these lights showed percentage differences beyond 10%: Dental Spark, SDI Radii Plus, Woodpecker LED. B and Woodpecker LED.D, we revised the sentence to read: Examples #1 and 2 of the Dental Spark, SDI Radii Plus and Woodpecker LED.B both showed percentage differences in the power output that were beyond 10%. Only example #2 of the Woodpecker LED.D had percentage differences in the power output that were beyond 10%. We reworded the section to read:

3.3 Comparison between LCUs

Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the percentage differences of each radiometer compared to the ‘GS’ measurement for each LCU. Of note, both meters reported power values that were above and below the ‘GS’ value. Examples #1 and 2 of the Dental Spark, SDI Radii Plus and Woodpecker LED.B both showed differences in the power output that were more than 10% different from the ‘GS’. Example #2 of the Dental Spark, SDI Radii Plus, Woodpecker LED.B and the Woodpecker LED.D had percentage differences in the power output that were greater than 10% different from the ‘GS’. Apart from the SDI Radii Plus, we considered these to be 'budget lights’. Figures 7 and 8 show that the highest percentage difference was for the Pinkwave when using the Bluephase Meter II, and these values were obviously incorrect. For the Mini Gig meter #1, the greatest difference from the 'GS’ result was 9%. For the Mini Gig meter #2, the greatest difference from the 'GS' was 15%. Both of these values were from the budget light Dental Spark LCU (c), whose standard deviations in the ‘GS’ power values were also large (±25 and 30 mW).

5. To address the concern, Did you consider the effect of temperature on the test during the experiment? We added:

The LCUs and meters were used in random order and at room temperature (20°C±1) to mimic the condition in a dental office.

6. To address the concern, More attention should be paid to clinical practice. What we want is the curing speed and depth, not the rigid value of radiation power. We believe that this reviewer has missed the point. Dentists and researchers need a reliable and accurate instrument to measure the light output from their light. This article tells the dentist and the researcher what to buy. The dentist ‘should be confident purchasing the Bluephase Meter II because it could accurately report the power from 11 out of the 12 brands of LCU tested.’ The researcher should purchase the Mini Gig. We have significantly edited the manuscript and hoe that this meets the reviewer’s concerns. Following our recommendations will enable dentists to make better treatment decisions that are based on the power (Watts) and amount of energy (Joules) that can be delivered to the RBC from the LCU.

7. We thank the reviewer for pointing out that we had not described what RBC meant before using the term. This error has been corrected.

8. We thank the reviewer for pointing out that we had not described Table 2 in the text. This has been corrected.

9. If our manuscript is accepted for publication, we shall upload our laboratory protocols to protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of our results.

Sincerely yours,

R.B. Price, BDS, DDS, MS, FRCD(C), PhD

Professor of Prosthodontics

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx
Decision Letter - Zhiyuan Zhu, Editor

PONE-D-21-40118R1Light Output from 12 Brands of Contemporary LED Light-Curing Units Measured Using 2 Brands of RadiometersPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Price,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 05 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zhiyuan Zhu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: please download the attachment

please download the attachment

please download the attachment

please download the attachment

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Reviewers comments2.doc
Revision 2

April 4, 2022

PLOSOne

Dr. Zhiyuan Zhu

Southwest University

CHINA

Dear Dr. Zhu:

Revisions to:

PONE-D-21-40118R2

Light Output from 12 Brands of Contemporary LED Light-Curing Units Measured Using 2 Brands of Radiometers

Enclosed is our revised manuscript that we would like to resubmit to PLOS One.

Comment #1:

Have you ever pressed a button manually?If you press a button with your finger, how do you make sure the timing of each button press is very accurate?

Comment #2:

Do you have the spectrogram similar to this picture below? If the answer is yes, please add into the article.

Answers:

1. We have addressed the concern about the 10-s. The exact timing was not relevant to the study, but we have addressed this concern in the text.

2. As requested, we have added a colour spectrum to Figure 4 and added it as a striking image.

The authors received no specific funding for this work, but the authors wish to thank the manufacturers for the loan of their Bluephase Meter II and the Mini Gig radiometers used in this study.

Dr. Cristiane Maucoski is a visiting graduate student from Brazil. She received a travel grant provided by a MITACS award IT26826 and an internal research fund grant from the Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University. Her visit to Canada was also supported by grant provided by Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES grant # 88881.622852/2021-01). Neither the manufacturers of the radiometers nor the funders of Dr. Maucoski’s visit to Canada had any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Sincerely yours,

R.B. Price, BDS, DDS, MS, FRCD(C), PhD

Professor of Prosthodontics

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers R2 .docx
Decision Letter - Zhiyuan Zhu, Editor

Light Output from 12 Brands of Contemporary LED Light-Curing Units Measured Using 2 Brands of Radiometers

PONE-D-21-40118R2

Dear Dr. Price,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Zhiyuan Zhu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Zhiyuan Zhu, Editor

PONE-D-21-40118R2

Power output from 12 brands of contemporary LED light-curing units measured using 2 brands of radiometers

Dear Dr. Price:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Zhiyuan Zhu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .