Slow Resorption of Anorganic Bovine Bone by Osteoclasts in Maxillary Sinus Augmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Different biomaterials have been suggested for guided bone regeneration (GBR). These might show the ideal properties to let a new bone formation in the grafted area. Among these ideal features, it is essential their controlled resorption in order to be replaced for new vital bone. Bovine bone has been used widely as a good biomaterial for GBR, however there is still an interesting controversy about its resorbable capacity. In this sense, the objective of this study was to examine the behavior of anorganic bovine bone (ABB) in long-term maxillary sinus graft healing and study its relationship with morphological and morphometrical variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen maxillary sinus augmentation procedures were performed in patients. Bone cores were obtained from implant receptor sites at 6 months, 3 years, and 7 years of implant placement for histological, morphometric, and immunohistochemical (tartrate resistant acid phosphatase [TRAP]/cathepsin K/CD68) studies. RESULTS: The percentages of bone, ABB particles, connective tissue, osteocytes, and osteoblasts in maxillary sinus grafts were similar at 6 months, 3 years, and 7 years. A progressive and significant decrease was detected in osteoclasts (p = .05, Kruskal-Wallis test), TRAP and cathepsin K expression (p = .014 and p = .021, respectively), and osteoid lines (p = .038). CONCLUSION: According to these data, a decrease in osteoclasts over time may, partially, explain the ABB persistence observed in core biopsies. Further studies with more cases and different graft maturation times are required to elucidate the resorption rates and cell events underlying these phenomena.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".