Evaluation of implants coated with rhBMP‐2 using two different coating strategies: a critical‐size supraalveolar peri‐implant defect study in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implants coated with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) induce relevant bone formation but also resident bone remodelling. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of implants fully or partially coated with rhBMP-2 on new bone formation and resident bone remodelling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve, male, adult, Hound Labrador mongrel dogs were used. Critical-size, supraalveolar, peri-implant defects received titanium porous oxide surface implants coated in their most coronal aspect with rhBMP-2 (coronal-load/six animals) or by immersion of the entire implant in an rhBMP-2 solution (soak-load/six animals) for a total of 30 mug rhBMP-2/implant. All implants were air-dried. The animals were euthanized at 8 weeks for histometric evaluation. RESULTS: Clinical healing was uneventful. Supraalveolar bone formation was not significantly affected by the rhBMP-2 application protocol. New bone height and area averaged (+/- SE) 3.4 +/- 0.2 versus 3.5 +/- 0.4 mm and 2.6 +/- 0.4 versus 2.5 +/- 0.7 mm(2) for coronal-load and soak-load implants, respectively (p>0.05). The corresponding bone density and bone-implant contact (BIC) recordings averaged 38.0 +/- 3.8%versus 34.4 +/- 5.6% and 25.0 +/- 3.8%versus 31.2 +/- 3.3% (p>0.05). In contrast, resident bone remodelling was significantly influenced by the rhBMP-2 application protocol. Bone density outside the implants threads averaged 74.7 +/- 3.8% and 50.8 +/- 4.1% for coronal-load and soak-load implants, respectively (p<0.05); bone density within the thread area averaged 51.8 +/- 1.2% and 37.8 +/- 2.9%, and BIC 70.1 +/- 6.7% and 43.3 +/- 3.9% (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Local application of rhBMP-2 appears to be a viable technology to support local bone formation and osseointegration. Coronal-load implants obviate resident bone remodelling without compromising new bone formation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".