Influence of lateral pressure to the implant bed on osseointegration: an experimental study in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To study osseointegration and bone-level changes at implants installed using either a standard or a reduced diameter bur for implant bed preparation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In six Labrador dogs, the first and second premolars were extracted bilaterally. Subsequently, mesial roots of the first molars were endodontically treated and distal roots, including the corresponding part of the crown, were extracted. After 3 months of healing, flaps were elevated and recipient sites were prepared in all experimental sites. The control site was prepared using a standard procedure, while the test site was prepared using a drill with a 0.2 mm reduced diameter than the standard one used in the contra-lateral side. After 4 months of healing, the animals were euthanized and biopsies were obtained for histological processing and evaluation. RESULTS: With the exception of one implant that was lost, all implants were integrated in mineralized bone. The alveolar crest underwent resorption at control as well as at test sites (buccal aspect ∼1 mm). The most coronal contact of bone-to-implant was located between 1.2 and 1.6 mm at the test and between 1.3 and 1.7 mm at the control sites. Bone-to-implant contact percentage was between 49% and 67%. No statistically significant differences were found for any of the outcome variables. CONCLUSIONS: After 4 months of healing, lateral pressure to the implant bed as reflected by higher insertion torques (36 vs. 15 Ncm in the premolar and 19 vs. 7 Ncm in the molar regions) did not affect the bone-to-implant contact.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".