In Vivo Bonding of Orthodontic Brackets to Fluorosed Enamel using an Adhesion Promotor
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
OBJECTIVES: To determine the success of bracket retention using an adhesion promoter with and without the additional microabrasion of enamel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two teeth with severe dental fluorosis were bonded in vivo using a split-mouth design where the enamel surfaces of 26 teeth were microabraded with 50 microm of aluminum silicate for 5 seconds under rubber dam and high volume suction. Thirty-seven percent phosphoric acid was then applied to the enamel, washed and dried, and followed by placement of Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus Bonding Adhesive. Finally, precoated 3M Unitek Victory brackets were placed and light cured. The remaining teeth were bonded using the same protocol but without microabrasion. RESULTS: After 9 months of intraoral service, only one bond failure occurred in the control group where microabrasion was used. Chi-square analysis revealed P = .31, indicating no statistical significance between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Bonding orthodontic attachments to fluorosed enamel using an adhesion promoter is a viable clinical procedure that does not require the additional micro-mechanical abrasion step.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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