| Title |
Force level of small diameter nickel-titanium orthodontic wires ligated with different methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Progress in Orthodontics, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40510-017-0175-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rodrigo Hitoshi Higa, José Fernando Castanha Henriques, Guilherme Janson, Murilo Matias, Karina Maria Salvatore de Freitas, Fernanda Pinelli Henriques, Manoela Fávaro Francisconi |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to compare the deflection force in conventional and thermally activated nickel-titanium (NiTi) wires in passive (Damon Q) and active (Bioquick) self-ligating brackets (SLB) and in conventional brackets (CB) tied by two different methods: elastomeric ligature (EL) and metal ligature (ML). Two wire diameters (0.014 and 0.016 in.) and 10 specimens per group were used. The specimens were assembled in a clinical simulation device and tested in an Instron Universal Testing Machine, with a load cell of 10 N. For the testing procedures, the acrylic block representative of the right maxillary central incisor was palatally moved, with readings of the force at 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 mm, at a constant speed of 2 mm/min and temperature of 36.5 °C. The conventional NiTi released higher forces than the thermally activated NiTi archwires in large deflections. In general, the SLB showed lower forces, while the ML had higher forces, with both showing a similar force release behavior, constantly decreasing as the deflection decreased. The EL showed an irregular behavior. The active SLB showed smaller forces than passive, in large deflections. The SLB and the ML exhibit standard force patterns during unloading, while the elastomeric ligatures exhibit a randomly distributed force release behavior. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 15 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 45% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 16 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2017.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#159
of 255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,297
of 327,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 255 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.