Vertical Bone Augmentation Using Different Osteoconductive Scaffolds Combined with Barrier Domes in the Rat Calvarium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the regenerative potential for vertical bone augmentation of various osteoconductive scaffolds when used in conjunction with barrier domes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following exposure and perforation of the calvarium, a gold occlusive dome was filled with the tested scaffold and anchored by fixation screws. Flaps were repositioned and secured. The four treatment groups, three to five rats each, were as follows: Bio-Oss collagen (BOC), β-tricalcium phosphate (TCP), collagen sponge (COL), and empty domes (C). Rats were sacrificed 8 weeks later, and specimens were prepared for histological and histomorphometric analysis. Vertical bone height and total tissue height were measured. RESULTS: The newly regenerated bone appeared mature, highly vascularized, and with no signs of inflammation. Vertical bone height in the TCP group (mean 2.04 ± 0.2 mm) was greater than all other groups (0.76 ± 0.02, 1.52 ± 0.18, and 1.77 ± 0.61 mm for the BOC, C, and COL, respectively) but significantly only for the BOC group (p = .0145). Total tissue height was significantly higher (p < .0001) in both BOC and TCP groups (4.48 ± 0.23 and 5.5 ± 0.24 mm, respectively) compared with COL (3.22 ± 0.11 mm) and C (2.39 ± 0.3 mm) groups. CONCLUSION: TCP in conjunction with barrier dome resulted in greater vertical bone augmentation in the calvarium of rats.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".