Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets Bonded to Provisional Crown Materials Utilizing Two Different Adhesives
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
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the shear bond strength of brackets bonded to provisional crown materials (PCMs) using two adhesive agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four PCMs were tested: Integrity, Jet, Protemp, and Snap. Forty cylindrical specimens of 10 mm diameter x 5 mm were prepared for each PCM. Ten specimens from each group were bonded to one of the two brackets, Clarity or Victory, using one of the two adhesives, Fuji Ortho LC or Ortho Bracket Adhesive. The brackets were debonded in shear at a cross-head speed of 5 mm/min, and the shear bond strength (SBS) was calculated. The type of failure was visually determined. The numeric data were analyzed using three-way analysis of variance and Tukey multiple range test at alpha = .05. RESULTS: The mean SBSs ranged from 2.81 MPa to 9.65 MPa. There was a significant difference between Snap and the other three materials (P < .0001). There was no significant difference between the two brackets or the two adhesives (P > .05). The bond failure for all the specimens was of the adhesive type between the PCM and the adhesive resin. CONCLUSIONS: The PCM Snap yielded a significantly lower mean SBS value compared to the other three materials. No significant differences were found between the brackets or the adhesives. The bond failure was of the adhesive type.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it