MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000814966 · doi:10.2319/012011-40.1

Analysis of maxillary arch force/couple systems for a simulated high canine malocclusion: Part 1. Passive ligation

2011· article· en· W2000814966 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Angle Orthodontist · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBracketArchMalocclusionOrthodonticsLigationDentistryMaterials scienceStructural engineeringEngineeringMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the mechanics of bracket/archwire interaction through analysis of force and couple distribution along the maxillary arch. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An orthodontic simulator was utilized to study high canine malocclusion. Force/couple distributions, referenced to the center of resistance (CR) of each tooth, produced by passive ligation brackets and round wire were measured. Tests were repeated for 12 bracket sets with 12 wires per set. RESULTS: Propagation of the force/couple systems around the arch was minimal. Binding was observed only on the teeth adjacent to the displaced canine. For most of the teeth, reduced resistance to sliding of the passive ligation bracket yielded minimal tangential and normal forces at the bracket and contributed to lower moments at CR. CONCLUSIONS: Some potential mechanical advantages of passive ligation systems are suggested for the case studied. In particular, limited propagation around the arch reduces the occurrence of unwanted force/couple systems.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it