Development and testing of fiber-reinforced composite space maintainers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop a clinically acceptable, cheaper, and more expedient alternative to standard stainless steel band and loop space maintainers. METHODS: Loops of fiber-reinforced composites were constructed using polyethylene fiber (Ribbond) and glass fiber (Sticktech). The loops were bonded on extracted third molars and tested for flexural strength before and after thermocycling and following repair of the appliances after initial stress failure. Bacterial colonization on the appliances was also compared. Conventional stainless steel band and loop space maintainers cemented with Ketac were controls. RESULTS: Ribbond samples demonstrated higher flexural strength than Sticktech and the control (P<.05). No differences were noted among the other samples and the control. The repaired Ribbond samples were statistically comparable in flexural strength to the initial samples. Thermocycling resulted in decreased flexural strength of both Ribbond and Sticktech (P<.05). Thermocycled Ribbond samples were comparable to the control, but a lower flexural strength was noted for Sticktech samples (P<.05). While all space maintainers allowed some bacterial adhesion, Sticktech showed higher Streptococcus mutans counts than Ribbond (P=.06). CONCLUSIONS: Ribbond space-maintainers are comparable to the stainless steel in terms of physical strength and biofilm formation. The fiber-reinforced composite space maintainers may be a clinically acceptable and expedient alternative to the conventional band-loop appliance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".