Effect of conventional and digital methods and aging on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets with temporary crowns based on aged PMMA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded to temporary crowns (TC) was investigated. TC were manufactured using conventional and digital methods (CAD/CAM milling, 3D printing) and then subjected to cyclic aging (5, 000 cycles). Surface roughness (Ra) and contact angle of polished and abrasive blasted TC were determined before and after aging. Data analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and repeated measures, and LSD in post-hoc tests (α=0.05). After surface treat ment, there was a significant increase in Ra of conventional and milled TC (p<0.001), while 3D printed showed a slight increase in Ra (p=0.073). The contact angle of polished TC surfaces was significantly different (p>0.05), and after surface treatment the differences in contact angle were small (p<0.001). Aesthetic orthodontic brackets bonded to temporary crowns, regardless of the production method, have adequate bond strength before and after aging, with the exception of 3D printed TCs after aging.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".