Primary Stability of a Hybrid Self-Tapping Implant Compared to a Cylindrical Non-Self-Tapping Implant with Respect to Drilling Protocols in an Ex Vivo Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Modifications of implant design have been intending to improve primary stability. However, little is known about investigation of a hybrid self-tapping implant on primary stability. PURPOSES: The aims of this study were to evaluate the primary stability of two hybrid self-tapping implants compared to one cylindrical non-self-tapping implant, and to elucidate the relevance of drilling protocols on primary stability in an ex vivo model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of hybrid self-tapping implants (Straumann® Bone Level implant [BL], Straumann® Tapered Effect implant [TE]) and one type of cylindrical non-self-tapping implant (Straumann® Standard Plus implant [SP]) were investigated in the study. In porcine iliac cancellous bones, 10 implants each were inserted either using standard drilling or under-dimensioned drilling protocol. The evaluation of implant-bone interface stability was carried out by records of maximum insertion torque, the Periotest® (Siemens, Bensheim, Germany), the resonance frequency analysis (RFA), and the push-out test. RESULTS: In each drilling group, the maximum insertion torque values of BL and TE were significantly higher than SP (p=.014 and p=.047, respectively). In each group, the Periotest values of TE were significantly lower than SP (p=.036 and p=.033, respectively). The Periotest values of BL and TE were significantly lower in the group of under-dimensioned drilling than standard drilling (p=.002 and p=.02, respectively). In the RFA, no statistical significances were found in implants between two groups and between implants in each group. In each group, the push-out values of BL and TE were significantly higher than SP (p=.006 and p=.049, respectively). CONCLUSION: Hybrid self-tapping implants could achieve a high primary stability which predicts them for use in low-density bone. However, there is still a debate to clarify the influence of under-dimensioned drilling on primary stability.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".