scholarly journals A Comparative Study of the Inbuilt Torque and Slot Size of the MBT Prescription Bracket of Different Manufacturing Companies: A Stereomicroscopic Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-215
Author(s):  
Mukesh Kumar ◽  
Manish Goyal ◽  
Ekta Yadav
2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 297-303
Author(s):  
Ashish Mathew ◽  
HC Kiran Kumar ◽  
Sadashiva Shetty

Torque is produced by a twist in an “archwire” that creates a couple when interacted with a “bracket slot.” Depending on the magnitude of the twist, the size of the wire, the built-in torque and the size of the slot, the archwire expresses torsional forces to the teeth. When brackets are manufactured, some variations may inadvertently occur in the dimensions of the bracket slot. Hence this study was done to determine the accuracy of different manufacturer’s dimensions of bracket slots and the built-in torque. Method: Seven upper right central incisor brackets of Mclaughlin Bennet and Trevisi (MBT) prescription with 0.022-inch slot from 5 different manufacturers were taken to assess the accuracy of bracket slot dimensions and built-in torque. A stereomicroscope was used to accurately determine slot dimensions and built-in torque. Results: The results showed that all the bracket slots measured in this study were oversized when compared to the standard value. Dentaurum showed significant difference from the ideal slot size and brackets from JJ Orthodontics and Desires showed highly significance difference from ideal slot size. The mean values for built in torque were less in all the brackets. The brackets from JJ Orthodontics and Desires showed highly significant difference from the ideal built in torque values. Interpretation and Conclusion: The above findings of the study suggest that one should be cautious when choosing a commercially available brand in day to day practice as some of the materials may not fulfill the desired standards.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting Zheng ◽  
Marco Ardolino ◽  
Andrea Bacchetti ◽  
Marco Perona

PurposeThis paper has two objectives: first, to investigate the state-of-the-art of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) adoption in Italian manufacturing firms and, second, to understand variations in technologies implemented and business functions involved, benefits perceived, and obstacles encountered in I4.0 implementation over a three-year period.Design/methodology/approachThe approach adopted in this research is descriptive, nesting longitudinal features. The paper presents a descriptive survey of 102 Italian manufacturing companies. The authors also evaluated non-response biases. The longitudinal approach was achieved by comparing the responses of the 40 sub-samples in common with a second similar survey launched three years prior, which aimed to identify patterns of evolution in the adoption of the I4.0 paradigm.FindingsSurvey findings demonstrate that Italian manufacturing companies still have limited awareness of I4.0 technologies, and the adoption of I4.0 technologies differs per technology. Company size and information system coverage level are the two factors that impact the company's technology adoption level. The comparative study shows that knowledge and adoption increase in a three-year interval with an unbalanced involvement of business functions regarding the I4.0 transformation. Indeed, companies are still seeking I4.0 solutions to reduce costs and lead times primarily, and the benefits perceived by companies are shown to be related to the number of I4.0 technologies in use. Finally, when companies put the I4.0 technologies into practice, competence is constantly considered the most significant barrier.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper aims at conducting a thorough investigation into the development of I4.0 adoption in manufacturing companies. The main limitation of this study concerns the limited number of subjects involved in the longitudinal study (40) and the focus on a limited geographical area (Italy). In addition, more I4.0 technologies could also be incorporated into the survey protocol to gain further insight into I4.0 development.Originality/valueThe authors provide one of the first attempts to assess the variations of I4.0 implementation concerning technology adoption, business function involvement, and the alteration of benefits and obstacles. Several studies presented in the literature highlight the lack of longitudinal studies investigating the development of the I4.0 paradigm in a specific manufacturing context: this paper is the attempt at filling this gap.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Kohne ◽  
Heiko Ranzau ◽  
Niklas Panten ◽  
Matthias Weigold

Abstract Both rising and more volatile energy prices are strong incentives for manufacturing companies to become more energy-efficient and flexible. A promising approach is the intelligent control of Industrial Energy Supply Systems (IESS), which provide various energy services to industrial production facilities and machines. Due to the high complexity of such systems widespread conventional control approaches often lead to suboptimal operating behavior and limited flexibility. Rising digitization in industrial production sites offers the opportunity to implement new advanced control algorithms e. g. based on Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) or Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) to optimize the operational strategies of IESS.This paper presents a comparative study of different controllers for optimized operation strategies. For this purpose, a framework is used that allows for a standardized comparison of rule-, model- and data-based controllers by connecting them to dynamic simulation models of IESS of varying complexity. The results indicate that controllers based on DRL and MILP have a huge potential to reduce energy-related cost of up to 50% for less complex and around 6% for more complex systems. In some cases however, both algorithms still show unfavorable operating behavior in terms of non-direct costs such as temperature and switching restrictions, depending on the complexity and general conditions of the systems.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Oliveira Ferreira de Souza ◽  
Éve‐Marie Frigon ◽  
Robert Tremblay‐Laliberté ◽  
Christian Casanova ◽  
Denis Boire

2001 ◽  
Vol 268 (6) ◽  
pp. 1739-1748
Author(s):  
Aitor Hierro ◽  
Jesus M. Arizmendi ◽  
Javier De Las Rivas ◽  
M. Angeles Urbaneja ◽  
Adelina Prado ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document