MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W48010881 · doi:10.2478/aoj-2012-0013

The force-distance properties of attracting magnetic attachments for tooth movement in combination with clear sequential aligners

2012· article· en· W48010881 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Angie Phelan, Peter Petocz, William R. Walsh, M. Ali Darendeliler

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Orthodontic Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovement (music)OrthodonticsComputer sciencePhysicsMedicineAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The demand for clear sequential aligner therapy has increased dramatically in recent years. An improved system utilising small neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnetic attachments has been proposed to enhance appliance capabilities. AIM: The aim of the investigation was to analyse the force system diagrams produced by small attracting NdFeB magnets to determine, 1) whether the force levels were sufficient to induce tooth movement, 2) the effect of magnet morphology on force characteristics and, 3) the most appropriate magnet dimensions that could be utilised for this application. METHODS: Twenty-nine NdFeB rectangular magnets of varying dimensions were tested. A Mach-1 universal testing machine (Biosyntech Inc, Quebec, Canada) was used to measure the attractive force of pairs of magnets. Measurements commenced with a magnetic pair in contact and subsequently vertically separated a distance of 10 mm at a speed of 12 mm/minute. For all magnetic configurations four repeat measurements were performed on five magnetic pairs of the same size. RESULTS: The force-distance diagrams for all magnet configurations demonstrated a dramatic decrease in force with increasing magnet separation. Rather than a suggested inverse square law, the experimental data followed an inverse fourth law when an offset determined by a regression analysis was applied to the distance. For the majority of magnets, insignificant forces were attained beyond 2 mm of separation. Magnets with large pole face areas and longer magnetic axes provided the greatest force. CONCLUSIONS: A select range of magnet configurations exhibited suitable and reliable attractive forces and therefore could be advocated for prescribed clinical application.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Orthodontic JournalSame topicOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsFrench-language works237,207