An Investigation on the Preparation and Mechanical Properties of Three-dimensional Braided Composite Orthodontic Archwires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Traditionally, orthodontists use metallic archwires during treatment with braces; however, the use of alternative materials such as coated metals, polymers, and fiber-reinforced composites can be advantageous for esthetics or achieving different mechanical properties. The following manuscript reports a study on three-dimensional (3D) braided reinforced polymeric composite archwires. The manufacturing process of the archwires is presented, and their mechanical behavior under tension and torsional loading are investigated. Materials and Methods: Two types of composite archwires were produced, with and without axial fibers/yarns, on a miniature 3D Cartesian braiding machine. A polyurethane-based biocompatible thermoset shape memory polymer was used as the matrix. 10 samples, with and without axial fibers, were tested in tension, and 10 samples without axial fibers were tested in torsion. Results: The average elastic moduli of the braided composites were 21.63 GPa and 28.63 GPa for the samples without axial yarns and with axial yarns, respectively. This variation outlines the tailorability of the braiding process to obtain different properties using the same material. Shear modulus was also investigated for the samples without axial yarns, and the average shear modulus was found to be 822 MPa. Conclusions: Properties in tension and torsion are comparable to those of existing archwires listed in the literature. In addition, the variation in elastic modulus between samples with and without axial yarns clearly indicates the tailorability of braided archwires. From the findings, it is evident that braided composite archwires offer a viable alternative to conventional archwires and should be investigated in more detail.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".