Assessment of slot sizes in self-ligating brackets using electron microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the slot dimensions of 0.022 inch self-ligating upper central incisor brackets from six manufacturers using electron microscopy, to compare the measured dimensions with the manufacturers' published dimensions, and to determine if the walls of the slots were parallel. MATERIALS: Six self-ligating upper central incisor brackets from four manufacturers (SmartClip and Clarity SL, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA; Speed, Strite Industries Ontario, Canada; Damon MX, Ormco, Orange, CA, USA; In-Ovation R and In-Ovation C, Dentsply GAC, Bohemia NY, USA) were imaged with a scanning electron microscope and the slots heights measured. Intra-operator repeatability and accuracy were determined. RESULTS: All brackets had slot sizes that were significantly larger (p < 0.05) than the stated 0.022 inch. Speed brackets were 5.1 per cent larger (0.02311 inch) and the closest to the published dimension. The SmartClip brackets were 14.8 per cent larger (0.02526 inch) than the quoted slot size of 0.022 inch. In most brackets the distances between the slot walls was generally greater further from the bracket bases. CONCLUSIONS: The actual measurements of upper central incisor self-ligating brackets from six manufacturers were larger than the manufacturers' stated dimension, and the walls of the slots diverged from the bracket bases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".