An <i>in vitro</i> investigation of the effectiveness of bioactive glass air‐abrasion in the ‘selective’ removal of orthodontic resin adhesive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of clinically debonding orthodontic brackets causes histomorphological damage to enamel that needs to be quantified and minimized. This study compared three methods for removing residual resin adhesive following bracket debonding. The surface finish following removal of residual adhesive using a slow-speed eight-bladed tungsten carbide bur (group 1), alumina air-abrasion (group 2), and bioactive-glass air-abrasion (group 3) and following polishing, was examined using scanning electron microscopy imaging of resin replicas. Contact profilometry was used to image surfaces before and after debonding for quantifiable volumetric analysis of enamel damage. Surface scarring was seen on scanning electron micrographs from group 1, a sharp pitted surface was identified in group 2, while group 3 exhibited similar, but subjectively smoother, pits. The surface finish following polishing was similar for groups 2 and 3 but did not completely remove the scarring evident from group 1. Quantifiable enamel lost was as follows: group 1, 0.285 mm(3); group 2, 0.386 mm(3); and group 3, 0.135 mm(3); statistical differences were observed between groups 2 and 3. From these results, bioactive-glass air-abrasion more consistently caused less physical damage to enamel and achieved a clinically smooth surface finish following polishing and is therefore to be recommended for clinical use.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".