The effect of air abrasion preparation on the shear bond strength of an orthodontic bracket bonded to enamel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the method of preparation of enamel which best retains a bonded orthodontic bracket against a shear force. Two hundred and twelve human lower premolars were randomly divided into four equal groups. Group 1 underwent no air abrasion, group 2 received treatment with 25 microm aluminium oxide particles, group 3 with 50 microm particles, and group 4 with 100 microm particles. All groups were treated with a self-etching primer before bonding of an orthodontic bracket. Each tooth was tested in a JJ Lloyd M30K machine to determine the maximum shear force required to dislodge the bracket from the tooth. A one-way analysis of variance test conducted at a 95 percent confidence level (CL) demonstrated that there was a significant difference (P < 0.01) with respect to the four methods of preparation of the enamel surface. An unpaired t-test was then applied at a 95 percent CL. There was no statistically significant difference between groups 1 and 2. There was, however, a statistically significant difference between groups 1 and 3 (P < 0.01), as well as between groups 1 and 4 (P < 0.01). In addition, there was significant difference found between groups 2 and 3 (P < 0.05), groups 2 and 4 (P < 0.01), and groups 3 and 4 (P < 0.05).
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 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 | 0.003 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".