Evaluation of the resistance and modulus of elasticity of mineralized and demineralized bone for the test of microtensile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regeneration is made through bone grafts that be one scaffold for the tecidual repairing, increasing bone tissue in the resultant defects, filling the alveolous after extraction to preserve the height and thickness of the alveolar rigde. These procedures are carried through the use of bone grafts. With the development of the osseointegrated implants, it was seen necessity to keep a good quantities and quality bone. The aim is evaluate the resistance the traction and modulus of elasticity of the mineralized and demineralized bone of calvarial of rats to determine initial standards (maximum and minimum) for comparisons with possible biomaterials of fulfilling of osteoinduction and osteoconduction. The 24 animals divided in 2 groups had been used. Group modulus of elasticity being that we will use the two parietals of the animal, having made possible 24 specimens, subdivided in mineralized (n=12) and demineralized (n=12). Group microtensile, being that 12 hemi-calvarial had been used for the demineralized sub-group and the others 12 hemi-calvarial for the mineralized sub-group. After the death of the animals, the specimens will be collected and treated in accordance with the sub-group (mineralized and demineralized). The tests had been carried through in a machine of universal test. The resistance averages the tensile of the mineralized one was mineralized 129,814 ± 34.921 MPa and the demineralized one was 18,547 ± 3,682 MPa. For the modulus of elasticity, the values of 1377,792 ± 208.331 MPa for the mineralized group and 49,669 ± 11,204 MPa for the demineralized group, when comparing the resistance and modulus of elasticity the tensile between the demineralized and mineralized sub-group observe a estatistical significant difference for the mineralized group (p<0,001). Concluded that the microtensile test can be used to evaluate the mechanical properties in this biological experimental model.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".