Interchangeability of semiadjustable articulators after 2 to 7 years of use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to test the interchangeability of articulators that had been in use from 2 to 7 years and compare these results with the interchangeability of the same articulators 1 year earlier. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six Whip Mix model #2240 articulators (Whip Mix Corporation, Louisville, KY) that were in clinical use from 2 to 7 years were checked for interchangeability using the Whip Mix #2245 check system. The horizontal tolerance of the check system was 94 microm. Articulators were also evaluated in the vertical dimension at 4 predetermined locations around the check system cylinders using 26-microm-thick shimstock. Vertical discrepancies between the cylinders were recorded as the thickness of 0, 1, 2, or more than 2 pieces of shimstock. Interchangeability results were compared with those determined 1 year previously using the same evaluation methods using the Exact McNemar's Test of Agreement (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Using the Whip Mix 2245 check system, 35 (76%) articulators were interchangeable after 2 to 7 years of use. This compares to 38 (83%) that were interchangeable upon evaluation 1 year earlier. The decrease in interchangeability was not significant (p =.4531). Forty-three (94%) of the articulators had vertical discrepancies of 52 microm or less at the initial evaluation. One year later, 45 (98%) of the articulators had vertical discrepancies of 52 microm or less. After 1 year, there were significant differences in the amount of vertical space between the cylinders only at the right side (p =.014). CONCLUSION: The Whip Mix model #2240 articulator can remain interchangeable during clinical use for 7 years, but should be routinely checked for calibration.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".