Electrochemical evaluation of the corrosion resistance of cup-yoke-type dental magnetic attachments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The corrosion resistance of different magnetic assemblies—Magfit DX800 (Aichi Steel), Gigauss D800 (GC), Hyper Slim 4013, and Hicorex Slim 4013 (Hitachi Metals)—were electrochemically evaluated using anodic polarization curves obtained in 0.9% NaCl solution at 37°C. Stainless steels (444, XM27, 447J1, and 316L) composing the magnetic assemblies were also examined as controls. This revealed that all of the magnetic assemblies break down at 0.6-1.1 V; however, their breakdown potentials were all still significantly higher (p<0.05) than that of 316L. The distribution of elements in the laser welding zone between the yoke and shield ring was analyzed using EPMA; except with Magfit DX800, where the Cr content of the shield ring weld was greater than that of 316L. These magnetic assemblies are expected to have good corrosion resistance in the oral cavity, as their breakdown potentials are sufficiently higher than the 316L commonly used as a surgical implant material.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".