Comparative Experimental Evaluation of Orthodontic Appliances for Maxillary Arch Expansion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: The orthodontic treatment of posterior crossbite using appliances for gradual maxillary expansion is crucial to ensure proper transversal jaw relationships as much as occlusal functionality. The aim of this study was to analyze forces and torques generated by different appliances for maxillary expansion. Methods: Measurements were conducted for the Wilson® 3D® Quadhelix (WQH) and Wilson® 3D® Multi-Action Palatal Appliance (WPA) across various sizes and compared to the Remanium® Quadhelix (RQH). Activations were set to 8 mm for the WQH and RQH and 6 and 8 mm for the WPA. Rotations and root torque were simulated via an activation of 10° for arches. A total of eight test series were conducted. Results: The WPA displayed the highest force and torque values for all movements, far surpassing recommended guideline values (expansion 8.5–>15.0 N/46.3–86.5 Nmm, rotation 3.1–6.1 N/40.7–61.4 Nmm, torque 3.9–5.1 N/22.4–29.7 Nmm), and the WQH displayed the lowest values (expansion 2.7–12.6 N/11.1–39.6 Nmm, rotation 0.1–1.7 N/23.0–32.2 Nmm, torque 0.9–2.9 N/3.4–10.5 Nmm). Appliances with the smallest transverse dimensions exhibited the highest force and torque maxima. Conclusions: This study underscores the importance of understanding biomechanical principles in orthodontics for minimizing unintended tooth movements, providing detailed insights into the force systems of appliances acting in the transverse plane, and establishing a foundation for future clinical investigations to validate these in vitro findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".