Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that the small bonding pads and prominent profiles of self-ligating brackets may lead to high failure rates when compared with conventional edgewise brackets. AIMS: To compare the bond failure rates of a self-ligating bracket (Speed, Strite Industries, Cambridge, Canada) and a twin edgewise bracket (Mini-Diamond, Ormco, Orange, CA, U.S.A.) bonded with different adhesives (Sequence, Ormco, Orange, CA, U.S.A.; Transbond XT, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, U.S.A.); to compare the bond failure rates of a self-ligating bracket bonded with different adhesives (Enlight, Ormco, Orange, CA, U.S.A.; Lightbond, Reliance, Itasca, IL, U.S.A.); and to compare the bond failure rates of molar attachments (Speed, Strite Industries, Cambridge, Canada) using different adhesives (Enlight, Ormco, Orange, CA, U.S.A.; Lightbond, Reliance, Itasca, IL, U.S.A.; Sequence, Ormco, Orange, CA, U.S.A.; Transbond XT, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). METHODS: This retrospective study covered 17 years. Study A (1991-99): Speed and Mini-Diamond brackets were bonded in both arches with either Sequence (Group 1) or Transbond-XT (Group 2) adhesives and the number of bond failures compared. Study B (2000-07): Speed brackets were bonded with either Lightbond (Group 3) or Enlight (Group 4) adhesives and the total number of bond failures (first-time and re-failures) compared. In Study C (1991-2007) Speed upper molar mini-brackets, upper molar tubes or ER brackets were used in the upper arch, and Speed lower buccal tubes were used in the lower arch. The failure rates of the molar attachments were compared. RESULTS: In Study A the failure rates with Sequence adhesive were: Speed 7.3 per cent, Mini-Diamond 11.9 per cent (p = 0.05). With Transbond XT adhesive the failure rates were: Speed 5.9 per cent, Mini-Diamond 6.4 per cent (p > 0.05). The teeth with the highest failure rates (central incisors and second premolars) were similar for both appliances. In Study B the failure rates were: Group 3 (Speed/Lightbond) 4.2 per cent; Group 4 (Speed/Enlight) 6.9 per cent; Group 3 vs Group 4, p = 0.05. In Study C the failure rate of Speed upper molar mini-brackets was markedly higher than the failure rates of the molar tubes. CONCLUSIONS: The failure rates of the Speed brackets reduced over time, possibly because of improvements in the adhesives. The small bonding pads and prominent profiles of Speed brackets did not result in high failure rates.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".