<i>Retracted</i>: Experimental Model of Bone Response to Collagenized Xenografts of Porcine Origin (OsteoBiol® mp3): A Radiological and Histomorphometric Study
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adequate alveolar ridges are fundamental to successful rehabilitation with implants. There are diverse techniques for reconstructing atrophied ridges, of which bone substitute grafts is one possibility. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to carry out radiological and histomorphometric evaluations of bone response to collagenized porcine bone xenografts over a 4-month period following their insertion in rabbits' tibiae. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty New Zealand rabbits were used. Twenty collagenized porcine bone xenografts (Osteobiol® mp3, Tecnoss Dental s.r.l., Torino, Italy), in granulated form of 600 to 1,000 µm, were inserted in the proximal metaphyseal area of the animals' tibiae and 20 control areas were created. Following implantation, the animals were sacrificed in four groups of five, after 1, 2, 3, and 4 months, respectively. Radiological and histomorphometric studies were made. RESULTS: After 4 months, radiological images revealed bone defects with a decrease in graft volume and the complete repair of the osseous defect. No healed or residual bone alterations attributable to the presence of the implants were observed. Histomorphometric analysis at 4 months found mean values for newly formed bone, residual graft material, and non-mineralized connective tissue of 25.4 ± 1.8%, 36.37 ± 3.0%, and 38.22 ± 2.5%, respectively. There were no statistical differences in the length of cortical formation with collagenized porcine xenograft (98.9 ± 1.1%) compared with the control samples (99.1 ± 0.7%) at the end of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The biomaterial used proved to be biocompatible, bioabsorbable, and osteoconductive and as such, a possible bone substitute that did not interfere with the bone's normal reparative processes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".