Assessment of the dimensions and surface characteristics of orthodontic wires and bracket slots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dimensions and surface characteristics of orthodontic wires and bracket slots of different commercial brands. METHODS: Thirty metallic brackets (0.022 x 0.028-in and 0.022 x 0.030-in) were divided into three groups: DYN/3M group = Dyna-Lock, 3M/Unitek (stainless steel, or SS); STD/MO group = Slim Morelli (SS); and Ni-Free/MO group = Slim Morelli (Ni-Free). The stainless steel wires (0.019 x 0.025-in) were divided into two groups: MO group = Morelli; and 3M group = 3M/Unitek. The bracket and wire measurements were done by two methods: (a) Surface Electron Microscopy (SEM), and (b) Profile Projection. The surface analysis was done qualitatively, based on SEM images and/or by a rugosimeter. The quantitative results were analyzed by ANOVA with Tukey's test (p < 0.05) and Student's t test. RESULTS: A significant difference in the dimensions of slots was observed, and the NiFree/MO group showed the greatest changes when compared to the other groups. The analysis of surface topography of the brackets indicated greater homogeneity of the metallic matrix for DYN/3M and STD/MO groups. As for the dimensions of the wires, groups showed statistically different mean heights. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that wires and brackets slots can present altered dimensions, which might directly and unintentionally affect the planned tooth movement.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".