Mechanical properties of cobalt-chromium wires compared to stainless steel and β-titanium wires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported on mechanical properties of different orthodontic wires. However, there is a paucity of information that comparing the mechanical properties of Blue Elgiloy (BE) when compared to stainless steel and TMA, as finishing wires as received by different companies. AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the mechanical properties of BE wires compared to stainless steel (SS) and titanium Molybdenum alloy (TMA) also known as β titanium as provided by two companies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six 0.016 x 0.022-14mm-samples of each wire were fixed individually to Instron machine and were tested in loading and unloading for three times. The initial load was set for 500 Kg at a speed of 1mm/min and displacement was adjusted for (0.5, 1mm in loading and 0.5 mm unloading at 25°C). STATISTICS ANALYSIS: Variables were compared between groups by ANOVA test using SPSS statistical software. RESULTS: BE shows comparable forces to SS when loaded 0.5 and showed decreased forces in 1mm loading compared to SS, and higher than TMA. BE also showed no forces at unloading and high deformation. CONCLUSION: BE from the two companies showed comparable mechanical properties while SS and TMA were different. The deformation of BE and its decreased forces in unloading may limit its 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".