A Comparison of the Compositional, Microstructural, and Mechanical Characteristics of Ni-Free and Conventional Stainless Steel Orthodontic Wires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ni-free orthodontic wires were introduced to mitigate concerns associated with the use of Ni-containing alloys in orthodontics. However, limited information is available on their properties and therefore, the aim of this study was to characterize the elemental composition, the microstructure, and the mechanical properties of Ni-free orthodontic wires and compare them with their stainless steel (SS) counterparts. Four Ni-free and four conventional SS wires were included in this study. All the wires were initially imaged with a Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and their elemental compositions were determined by X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDX). Then, their microstructure was assessed by X-ray Diffraction (XRD) and the indentation modulus, elastic index, Martens Hardness and Vickers Hardness by Instrumented Indentation Testing (IIT). All the wires demonstrated surface cracks and pores oriented parallel to their long axis. The elemental composition of Ni-free alloys showed an increased Mn and Cr content while both SS and Ni-free wires shared the same dominant austenite structure. In conclusion, despite the differences in elemental composition, Ni-free wires demonstrated a similar microstructure and comparable mechanical properties with their conventional SS counterparts and thus may be considered as a promising alternative for patients with Ni supersensitivity.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".