Bone Response to Free‐Form Fabricated Hydroxyapatite and Zirconia Scaffolds: A Transmission Electron Microscopy Study in the Human Maxilla
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the interfacial reactions to synthetic bone regenerative scaffolds in vivo is fundamental for improving osseointegration and osteogenesis. Using transmission electron microscopy, it is possible to study the biological response of hydroxyapatite (HA) and zirconia (ZrO(2) ) scaffolds at the nanometer scale. PURPOSE: In this study, the bone-bonding abilities of HA and ZrO(2) scaffolds produced by free-form fabrication were evaluated in the human maxilla at 3 months and 7 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HA and ZrO(2) scaffolds (ø: 3 mm) were implanted in the human maxilla, removed with surrounding bone, embedded in resin, and sectioned. A novel focused ion beam (FIB) sample preparation technique enabled the production of thin lamellae for study by scanning transmission electron microscopy. RESULTS: Interface regions were investigated using high-angle annular dark-field imaging and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy analysis. Interfacial apatite layers of 80 nm and 50 nm thickness were noted in the 3- and 7-month HA samples, respectively, and bone growth was discovered in micropores up to 10 µm into the samples. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of an interfacial layer in the ZrO(2) samples suggest the formation of a direct contact with bone, while HA, which bonds through an apatite layer, shows indications of resorption with increasing implantation time. This study demonstrates the potential of HA and ZrO(2) scaffolds for use as bone regenerative materials.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".