A comparison of torque expression between stainless steel, titanium molybdenum alloy, and copper nickel titanium wires in metallic self-ligating brackets
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The force moment providing rotation of the tooth around the x-axis (buccal-lingual) is referred to as torque expression in orthodontic literature. Many factors affect torque expression, including the wire material characteristics. This investigation aims to provide an experimental study into and comparison of the torque expression between wire types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With a worm-gear-driven torquing apparatus, wire was torqued while a bracket mounted on a six-axis load cell was engaged. Three 0.019 x 0.0195 inch wire (stainless steel, titanium molybdenum alloy [TMA], copper nickel titanium [CuNiTi]), and three 0.022 inch slot bracket combinations (Damon 3MX, In-Ovation-R, SPEED) were compared. RESULTS: At low twist angles (<12 degrees), the differences in torque expression between wires were not statistically significant. At twist angles over 24 degrees, stainless steel wire yielded 1.5 to 2 times the torque expression of TMA and 2.5 to 3 times that of nickel titanium (NiTi). At high angles of torsion (over 40 degrees) with a stiff wire material, loss of linear torque expression sometimes occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Stainless steel has the largest torque expression, followed by TMA and then NiTi.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it