↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of surface roughness of the bracket slot floor—a 3D perspective study

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Orthodontics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of surface roughness of the bracket slot floor—a 3D perspective study
Published in
Progress in Orthodontics, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40510-016-0116-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chetankumar O. Agarwal, Ketan K. Vakil, Avinash Mahamuni, Pawankumar Dnyandeo Tekale, Prasad V. Gayake, Jeegar K. Vakil

Abstract

An important constituent of an orthodontic appliance is orthodontic brackets. It is either the bracket or the archwire that slides through the bracket slot, during sliding mechanics. Overcoming the friction between the two surfaces demands an important consideration in an appliance design. The present study investigated the surface roughness of four different commercially available stainless steel brackets. All tests were carried out to analyse quantitatively the morphological surface of the bracket slot floor with the help of scanning electron microscope (SEM) machine and to qualitatively analyse the average surface roughness (Sa) of the bracket slot floor with the help of a three-dimensional (3D) non-contact optical surface profilometer machine. The SEM microphotographs were evaluated with the help of visual analogue scale, the surface roughness for group A = 0-very rough surface, group C = 1-rough surface, group B = 2-smooth surface, and group D = 3-very smooth surface. Surface roughness evaluation with the 3D non-contact optical surface profilometer machine was highest for group A, followed by group C, group B and group D. Groups B and D provided smooth surface roughness; however, group D had the very smooth surface with values 0.74 and 0.75 for mesial and distal slots, respectively. Evaluation of surface roughness of the bracket slot floor with both SEM and profilometer machine led to the conclusion that the average surface roughness was highest for group A, followed by group C, group B and group D.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Postgraduate 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Professor 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 16 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 53%
Engineering 2 5%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Materials Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,168,964
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#81
of 255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,682
of 401,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 401,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.