Impact of Orthodontic Mini-screw Angulation Relative to Direction of Force Application on Stability, Movement, and the Peri-implant Interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of insertion angle of orthodontic mini screws on the stability and resistance to movement of the mini screw, and on the peri-implant interface. Three orthodontic mini screws were placed in each tibia of six New Zealand white rabbits bilaterally (N=36), with randomized angulation (65° away, 65° toward, or 90° to the direction of applied force). After two weeks, two orthodontic mini screws within each tibia were loaded with a 200g Nitinol closed-coil spring for up to 14 days. No statistically significant differences were found among the variably angulated loaded and unloaded orthodontic mini screws in the amount of movement or change in angulation demonstrated over the experimental period. Micro CT analysis revealed no clinically significant differences in the amount of cortical bone-to-implant contact. Mini screw placement angulation seems to have minimal impact on stability and migration of orthodontic mini screws over time.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".