Comparison of Initial Alignment Efficiency and Pain Perception of Three Copper-Nickel-Titanium Archwires of Different Manufacturers in Orthodontic Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A BSTRACT Introduction: Laboratory studies have demonstrated that copper–nickel–titanium (CuNiTi) archwires from different manufacturers differ in their mechanical properties due to variations in their composition. Materials and Methods: Forty-five patients requiring fixed orthodontic treatment in mandibular arch were randomly divided into three groups (Group O = 0.014″ Copper NiTi preformed archwires, ORMCO, Group 3M = 0.014″ SmartClip NiTinol Heat-activated 3M Unitek, Group AO = 0.014″ Tanzo Copper Nickel Titanium archwire, American Orthodontics). During the pre-alignment phase (T0) as well as at each subsequent phase of alignment every 3 weeks at T3, T6, T9, and T12, a mandibular alginate impression was taken. A modified version of Little’s irregularity index was used to estimate the teeth’s alignment in millimeters from the resulting cast. The modified McGill pain questionnaire and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were used to assess pain during the patient’s visit at T3. Results: The modified Little’s irregularity index showed significant differences among the three groups at T3 ( P = .05) regarding alignment efficiency. The paired t -test showed that Group O showed significant differences at T3 when compared to Group 3M ( P = .029) and Group AO ( P = .21) in terms of alignment efficiency. There were no significant differences in the intensity of pain among the three groups ( P > .05). Conclusions: In terms of alignment efficiency, Copper NiTi preformed archwires, ORMCO performed better than the CuNiTi archwires from the other two manufacturers, while the three types of CuNiTi had similar levels of initial pain perception.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".