Comparison of Surface Conditioning Protocols on The Shear Bond Strength of Metal Brackets Bonded To Amalgam Surface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Orthodontists more often comes across amalgam restoration as a surface to bond brackets.The objective of current study was to compare the mean shear bond strength of orthodontic metal brackets bonded on sandblasted versus diamond bur roughened amalgam surfaces.METHODOLOGY: Current In-vitro, comparative study was conducted at Orthodontic department of Faisalabad medical university from 17.2.2017 to 17.8.2017.Sixty extracted human maxillary molars were included in the study as per inclusion criteria.They were randomly divided into two groups.In group-A, metal brackets were bonded to amalgam using sandblasting with 50 ?malumina particles.In group-B, brackets were bonded after roughening the amalgam surface with diamond bur.Shear bond strength (SB) was measured and compared using universal testing machine, in both the groups.RESULTS: SB of metal brackets bonded with sandblasting (17.05±5.9MPa) was significantly higher than diamond bur roughened group (11.08±4.0MPa).CONCLUSION: Amalgam surface treatment with sandblasting increased the shear bond strength of metal orthodontic brackets significantly higher than the diamond bur roughening.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".