Galvanic coupling of steel and gold alloy lingual brackets with orthodontic wires: Is corrosion a concern?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this research was to assess galvanic behavior of lingual orthodontic brackets coupled with representative types of orthodontic wires. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three types of lingual brackets: Incognito (INC), In-Ovation L (IOV), and STb (STB) were combined with a stainless steel (SS) and a nickel-titanium (NiTi) orthodontic archwire. All materials were initially investigated by scanning electron microscopy / x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM/EDX) while wires were also tested by x-ray diffraction spectroscopy (XRD). All bracket-wire combinations were immersed in acidic 0.1M NaCl 0.1M lactic acid and neutral NaF 0.3% (wt) electrolyte, and the potential differences were continuously recorded for 48 hours. RESULTS: The SEM/EDX analysis revealed that INC is a single-unit bracket made of a high gold (Au) alloy while IOV and STB are two-piece appliances in which the base and wing are made of SS alloys. The SS wire demonstrated austenite and martensite iron phase, while NiTi wire illustrated an intense austenite crystallographic structure with limited martensite. All bracket wire combinations showed potential differences below the threshold of galvanic corrosion (200 mV) except for INC and STB coupled with NiTi wire in NaF media. CONCLUSIONS: The electrochemical results indicate that all brackets tested demonstrated galvanic compatibility with SS wire, but fluoride treatment should be used cautiously with NiTi wires coupled with Au and SS brackets.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".