Partially Biodegradable Distraction Implant to Replace Conventional Implants in Alveolar Bone of Insufficient Height: A Preliminary Study in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dental implants have been widely used in the last few decades. However, patients with insufficient bone height need reconstructive surgeries before implant insertion. The distraction implant (DI) has been invented to simplify the treatment procedure, but the shortcomings of DIs have limited their clinical use. We incorporated biodegradable polyester into a novel DI called the partially biodegradable distraction implant (PBDI). PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the radiological, histological, and biomechanical properties of the PBDI in animal models. MATERIAL AND METHODS: PBDIs were manufactured and inserted into the atrophied mandibles of nine dogs. Box-shaped alveolar bones were segmented and distracted. The dogs were randomly divided into three groups that were sacrificed 1, 2, and 3 months after the implant insertion. Actual augmentation height (AAH) of the bone segments was measured to evaluate the effect of distraction. X-ray examination and micro-CT reconstruction and analysis were used to evaluate the regenerated bone in the distraction gap and bone around the functional element. Histological sections were used to evaluate the osseointegration and absorption of the PBDI. Fatigue tests were used to evaluate the biomechanical properties of the PBDI. RESULTS: Little change was found in AAH among the three groups. X-ray examination and micro-CT reconstruction showed good growth of regenerated bone in the distraction gap. Alveolar bone volume around the functional element increased steadily. No obvious bone absorption occurred in the alveolar crest around PBDI. Three months after distraction, the functional element achieved osseointegration, and the support element began to be absorbed. All PBDIs survived the fatigue test. CONCLUSIONS: The PBDI is a novel and reliable dental implant. It becomes a conventional implant after the absorption of the support element and the removal of the distraction screw. It is a promising replacement for conventional implants in patients with insufficient alveolar bone height.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".