FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2091567709> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2091567709 endingPage "S172" @default.
• W2091567709 startingPage "S168" @default.
• W2091567709 abstract "IntroductionIn this in-vitro study, we aimed to investigate the predictability of the expected amount of stripping using 3 common stripping devices on premolars.MethodsOne hundred eighty extracted premolars were mounted and aligned in silicone. Tooth mobility was tested with Periotest (Medizintechnik Gulden, Modautal, Germany) (8.3 ± 2.8 units). The selected methods for interproximal enamel reduction were hand-pulled strips (Horico, Hapf Ringleb & Company, Berlin, Germany), oscillating segmental disks (O-drive-OD 30; KaVo Dental, Biberach, Germany), and motor-driven abrasive strips (Orthofile; SDC Switzerland, Lugano-Grancia, Switzerland). With each device, the operator intended to strip 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, or 0.4 mm on the mesial side of 15 teeth. The teeth were scanned before and after stripping with a 3-dimensional laser scanner. Superposition and measurement of stripped enamel on the most mesial point of the tooth were conducted with Viewbox software (dHal Software, Kifissia, Greece). The Wilcoxon signed rank test and the Kruskal-Wallis test were applied; statistical significance was set at alpha ≤0.05.ResultsLarge variations between the intended and the actual amounts of stripped enamel, and between stripping procedures, were observed. Significant differences were found at 0.1 mm of intended stripping (P ≤0.05) for the hand-pulled method and at 0.4 mm of intended stripping (P ≤0.001 to P = 0.05) for all methods. For all scenarios of enamel reduction, the actual amount of stripping was less than the predetermined and expected amount of stripping. The Kruskal-Wallis analysis showed no significant differences between the 3 methods.ConclusionsThere were variations in the stripped amounts of enamel, and the stripping technique did not appear to be a significant predictor of the actual amount of enamel reduction. In most cases, actual stripping was less than the intended amount of enamel reduction. In this in-vitro study, we aimed to investigate the predictability of the expected amount of stripping using 3 common stripping devices on premolars. One hundred eighty extracted premolars were mounted and aligned in silicone. Tooth mobility was tested with Periotest (Medizintechnik Gulden, Modautal, Germany) (8.3 ± 2.8 units). The selected methods for interproximal enamel reduction were hand-pulled strips (Horico, Hapf Ringleb & Company, Berlin, Germany), oscillating segmental disks (O-drive-OD 30; KaVo Dental, Biberach, Germany), and motor-driven abrasive strips (Orthofile; SDC Switzerland, Lugano-Grancia, Switzerland). With each device, the operator intended to strip 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, or 0.4 mm on the mesial side of 15 teeth. The teeth were scanned before and after stripping with a 3-dimensional laser scanner. Superposition and measurement of stripped enamel on the most mesial point of the tooth were conducted with Viewbox software (dHal Software, Kifissia, Greece). The Wilcoxon signed rank test and the Kruskal-Wallis test were applied; statistical significance was set at alpha ≤0.05. Large variations between the intended and the actual amounts of stripped enamel, and between stripping procedures, were observed. Significant differences were found at 0.1 mm of intended stripping (P ≤0.05) for the hand-pulled method and at 0.4 mm of intended stripping (P ≤0.001 to P = 0.05) for all methods. For all scenarios of enamel reduction, the actual amount of stripping was less than the predetermined and expected amount of stripping. The Kruskal-Wallis analysis showed no significant differences between the 3 methods. There were variations in the stripped amounts of enamel, and the stripping technique did not appear to be a significant predictor of the actual amount of enamel reduction. In most cases, actual stripping was less than the intended amount of enamel reduction." @default.
• W2091567709 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2091567709 creator A5066448929 @default.
• W2091567709 creator A5078330419 @default.
• W2091567709 creator A5086458661 @default.
• W2091567709 creator A5090929306 @default.
• W2091567709 date "2013-04-01" @default.
• W2091567709 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2091567709 title "Quantitative comparison of 3 enamel-stripping devices in vitro: How precisely can we strip teeth?" @default.
• W2091567709 cites W1825952398 @default.
• W2091567709 cites W1963508811 @default.
• W2091567709 cites W1966779327 @default.
• W2091567709 cites W2026390430 @default.
• W2091567709 cites W2086848581 @default.
• W2091567709 cites W2130066555 @default.
• W2091567709 cites W2156059679 @default.
• W2091567709 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.10.001" @default.
• W2091567709 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23540634" @default.
• W2091567709 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2091567709 type Work @default.
• W2091567709 sameAs 2091567709 @default.
• W2091567709 citedByCount "25" @default.
• W2091567709 countsByYear W20915677092014 @default.
• W2091567709 countsByYear W20915677092015 @default.
• W2091567709 countsByYear W20915677092016 @default.
• W2091567709 countsByYear W20915677092017 @default.
• W2091567709 countsByYear W20915677092018 @default.
• W2091567709 countsByYear W20915677092019 @default.
• W2091567709 countsByYear W20915677092020 @default.
• W2091567709 countsByYear W20915677092021 @default.
• W2091567709 countsByYear W20915677092022 @default.
• W2091567709 countsByYear W20915677092023 @default.
• W2091567709 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2091567709 hasAuthorship W2091567709A5066448929 @default.
• W2091567709 hasAuthorship W2091567709A5078330419 @default.
• W2091567709 hasAuthorship W2091567709A5086458661 @default.
• W2091567709 hasAuthorship W2091567709A5090929306 @default.
• W2091567709 hasBestOaLocation W20915677091 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConcept C12868164 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConcept C156887251 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConcept C159985019 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConcept C206041023 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConcept C29694066 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConcept C41952129 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConceptScore W2091567709C105795698 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConceptScore W2091567709C12868164 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConceptScore W2091567709C156887251 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConceptScore W2091567709C159985019 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConceptScore W2091567709C192562407 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConceptScore W2091567709C199343813 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConceptScore W2091567709C206041023 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConceptScore W2091567709C29694066 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConceptScore W2091567709C33923547 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConceptScore W2091567709C41952129 @default.
• W2091567709 hasConceptScore W2091567709C71924100 @default.
• W2091567709 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2091567709 hasLocation W20915677091 @default.
• W2091567709 hasLocation W20915677092 @default.
• W2091567709 hasOpenAccess W2091567709 @default.
• W2091567709 hasPrimaryLocation W20915677091 @default.
• W2091567709 hasRelatedWork W2000560091 @default.
• W2091567709 hasRelatedWork W2091567709 @default.
• W2091567709 hasRelatedWork W2113063956 @default.
• W2091567709 hasRelatedWork W2328537214 @default.
• W2091567709 hasRelatedWork W2364177406 @default.
• W2091567709 hasRelatedWork W2517175409 @default.
• W2091567709 hasRelatedWork W2613151378 @default.
• W2091567709 hasRelatedWork W3021589997 @default.
• W2091567709 hasRelatedWork W3179330985 @default.
• W2091567709 hasRelatedWork W4383700796 @default.
• W2091567709 hasVolume "143" @default.
• W2091567709 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2091567709 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2091567709 magId "2091567709" @default.
• W2091567709 workType "article" @default.