Does thermoplastics' thickness influence joint stabilization and movement coordination? An inferential study of wrist orthoses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the existence of multiple low-temperature thermoplastics, clinicians fabricating can readily modify an orthoses' thickness, weight and flexibility, among other properties. However, there is limited evidence on the impact of such different materials on upper extremities' biomechanics. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to investigate differences in joint stabilization and movement coordination provided by upper extremity orthotics fabricated with low-temperature thermoplastics of different thicknesses. STUDY DESIGN: Inferential, cross-sectional study. METHOD: We conducted a kinematic analysis of a standardized task through a three-dimensional motion capture system. Ten participants (5 female) performed the same task under three circumstances: 1) wearing a volar wrist immobilization orthosis, made with a 3.2-mm thick low-temperature thermoplastic; 2) using the same orthotic fabricated with a 1.6-mm thick material; and (3) without orthoses. We divided the standardized task into five logical phases for data analysis, obtaining the active range of motion of the shoulder, elbow, forearm, and wrist joints as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included movement smoothness and coordination, measured by the number of motor units, time, and distance travelled by the upper extremity. RESULTS: Despite changes in thermoplastic thickness, both orthotics significantly restricted the wrist motion during task performance (F(2,16) = 14.32, P < .01, and η2p = 0.797), with no difference between the 2 devices and no significant changes to proximal joints' active range of motion. Although orthoses use increased the time required for task performance (F(2,16) = 23.05, P < .01, and η2p = 0.742), no significant differences in movement smoothness or coordination were noted. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that wrist orthoses fabricated with a 1.6-mm thick low-temperature thermoplastic can provide joint stabilization similar to a device made from a 3.2-mm thickness material, suggesting thinner thermoplastics' efficacy to stabilize joints in the absence of contractures or preexisting chronic conditions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".