Evaluating the support and associated strain distribution in unilateral obturator with different designs: An experimental and finite element study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate support (the resistance to tissue-ward movement) and strain distribution in unilateral obturators with four designs using Digital Image Correlation (DIC) and Finite Element Analysis (FEA). Twelve epoxy-resin models were prepared to receive removable obturators that have four designs, including acrylic resin-based obturators (ARO), linear (LDO), tripodal (TDO), and a newly modified one termed fully tripodal design obturator (FTDO) were used for DIC. The models were installed in a DIC set to receive a vertical load of 150N. The strain on the dentate and defect sides was evaluated using DIC software. Mathematically, four finite element models were prepared to receive vertical and lateral loads of 100N on two points. The support and strain were assessed using the ANSYS workbench. Using DIC, the ARO demonstrated the highest strain values on the defect area and as an entire prosthesis, followed by the LDO on the defect side. Using FEA, the TDO produced the highest strain value with anterior (oblique) and posterior loads. LDO produced the lowest support and highest strain on the anterior teeth compared to TDO and FTDO. ARO resulted in the highest total strain, while the TDO produced the lowest. Both TDO and FTDO were comparable in terms of strains and support.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".