IN-VIVO ANALYSIS OF OXIDATIVE STRESS IN AESTHETIC COATED ORTHODONTIC ARCH-WIRES & BRACKETS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To assess in vivo the oxidative damage that aesthetic coated arch-wires causes by measuring 8OHdG (8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine ) as an oxidative marker to detect the level of oxidative stress generation.Materials and Methods: About 80 patients of ages 15-30 years enrolled in the study having fi xed orthodontic treatment were divided into control (patients with NiTi wire) and experimental groups including patients with wires coated in PTFE, epoxy resin, and rhodium. Saliva samples were collected with an unstimulated saliva collection method at two intervals. The first sample was collected before the bonding process and insertion of the arch-wires and the second sample was collected four weeks after the insertion of arch-wires. The samples were kept in storage at -80°C, and the amounts of 8-OHdG were measured by ELISA analysis.Results: The salivary 8-OhdG level in all groups was measured at day 0 and the end of week 4. At day 0, It was 1.60±43 ng/ml in the NiTi group,1.60±0.52 ng/ml in the epoxy resin group, 1.70±0.12 ng/ml in the rhodium group and 1.63±0.40 ng/ml in PTFE group. After 4 weeks, it was 3.6810.47 ng/ml in the NiTi group, 3.50±0.77 ng/ml in the epoxy resin group, 3.06±0.70 ng/ml in the rhodium group and 2.75±0.72 ng/ml in PTFE group, p = 0.812) This demonstrated that while there was no noteworthy variation in the groups' mean 8-OHdG levels at day 0, there was at week 4. Post hoc Tukey test revealed that PTFE-coated arch-wires and Rhodium group had significantly lower 8-OHdG levels compared to NiTi and Epoxy resin-coated arch-wire. Salivary 8-OHdG levels increased significantly after 4 weeks of arch-wire use in all groups.Conclusion: This study suggests that PTFE-coated arch-wires are the most biocompatible among the coated arch-wires studied.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".