Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets Bond with Conventional Light Emitting Diode and Fast Halogen Light
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim: To compare the mean shear bond strength (MSBS) of metal brackets bonded with conventional LED or fast halogen units. Methods: This in-vitro comparative study was conducted on 50 extracted human premolars which were randomly divided into 2 groups of 25 teeth each, by lottery method. Following a standard bonding protocol, Group 1, teeth brackets were cured with conventional LED light source and in group 2, by fast halogen light. MSBS was measured using universal testing machine, at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute and recorded in megapascals (MPa). Independent t-test was used for comparison of MSBS in both the groups. The level of significance was determined at p≤0.05. Duration of this study was January 2017 to October 2017. Results: MSBS of metal brackets cured with fast halogen (17.60±3.7 MPa) was similar to conventional LED unit (16.66±3.0 MPa). Conclusion: Fast halogens are equally effective for curing brackets, as they give similar bond strength when compared with conventional LED lights.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".