A comparison of resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets under an increasing applied moment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the null hypotheses that at clinically relevant amounts of applied moment, there are no differences in the amount of resistance to sliding (RS) between self-ligating (SL) and conventionally ligated (CL) brackets on both stainless steel (SS) and nickel-titanium (NT) archwire. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different SL brackets and one CL bracket, all 0.022″ slot, were tested on a custom-built device to simulate canine retraction mechanics in the second-order dimension. The setup allowed for simultaneous and continuous measurement of RS and applied moment at the bracket-archwire interface. The brackets tested were Damon3, In-Ovation R, Smartclip, and Victory, all of which were tested with 0.019″ × 0.025″ SS and NT archwires. The RS at calculated moments of 2000 g-mm and 4000 g-mm was determined and compared between the various brackets and both archwire types. Descriptive measures, analysis of variance, and Tukey-Kramer post-test comparisons were used to calculate results. RESULTS: All brackets displayed a greater amount of RS with NT than with SS archwires. At the higher moment levels (4000 g-mm), no significant reduction in RS was found between CL and SL brackets on both SS and NT archwires. At lower levels of applied moment (2000 g-mm), reductions in RS of 18% (42.7 g) and 18% (38.5 g) were found between the CL bracket and the best performing SL bracket on NT and SS, respectively. CONCLUSION: At low values of applied moment, some statistical differences were found; however, in general, the differences in RS amongst the various SL and CL brackets tested may not be clinically relevant.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".