Effect of Ligation Method on Maxillary Arch Force/Moment Systems for a Simulated Lingual Incisor Malalignment
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
INTRODUCTION: The objectives of this study were to determine whether there is a difference in the magnitude of forces and moments produced by elastic ligation when compared to passive ligation, and whether these forces and moments propagate differently along the arch for the two ligation types. A lingual incisor malalignment was used in this study. METHODS: The Orthodontic Simulator (OSIM) was used to quantify the three-dimensional forces and moments applied on the teeth given a lingually displaced incisor. A repeated measures MANOVA was performed to statistically analyze the data. RESULTS: The interaction factor illustrated convincing evidence that there is a difference in maximum force and moment values for all outcome variables between ligation types considering all tooth positions along the arch. The mean differences for FX and FY between ligation types were found to be clinically significant, with values for elastic ligation consistently higher than passive ligation. CONCLUSION: It was found that the maximum forces and moments produced by elastic ligation are greater than those produced by passive ligation and that the magnitude of this difference for the mesiodistal and buccolingual forces is clinically relevant. Additionally, it was determined that elastic ligation causes forces and moments to propagate further along the arch than passive ligation for all outcome variables.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.001 | 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