Une évaluation de la dimension de la lumière de boîtiers 0,018" provenant de quatre différents manufacturiers. Existe-t-il un standard dans l’industrie?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The objective of this experimental research was to evaluate the slot’s vertical dimension and profile of four different 0.018″ self-ligating brackets and to identify the level of tolerance accepted by manufacturers during the fabrication process. It was then possible to calculate and compare the torque play of those brackets using the measured values and the nominal values. Material and Methods: Twenty-five 0.018″ self-ligating brackets of upper left central incisors from the following manufacturers, Speed® (Strite Industries, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada), InOvationR® (GAC, Bohemia, NY, USA), CarriereLX® (Ortho Organizers, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and SmartClip® (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA), were evaluated using electron microscopy with 150X images. The height of each bracket was measured at every 100 microns of depth from the lingual wall at five different levels. A Student T test was then used to compare our results with the manufacturer’s stated value of 0.018″. To determine if there was a significant difference between the four manufacturers, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed at the significance level of p<0.05. The torque play was then calculated using geometrical formulas. Results: On average, Speed brackets were oversized by 2.7%[MV 0.0185″ (SD:0.002)], InOvationR by 3.7% [MV 0.0187″ (SD:0.002)], CarriereLX by 3.2% [MV 0.0186″ (SD:0.002)] and SmartClipSL by 5.0% [MV 0.0189″ (SD:0.002)]. The height of all brackets was significantly higher than the nominal value of 0.018″ (p<0.001). The slot of SmartClip brackets was significantly larger than those of the other three manufacturers (p<0.001). None of the brackets studied had parallel gingival and occlusal walls; some were convergent and others divergent. These variations can induce a torque play up to 4.5 degrees with a 0.017″x0.025″ wire and 8.0 degrees with a 0.016″x0.022″ wire. Conclusion: All studied brackets were oversized. None of the brackets studied had parallel gingival and occlusal walls and there was no standard between manufacturers for the geometry of their slots. These variations can cause a slight increase of the torque play between the wire and the bracket compared with the nominal value.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".