Short Communication: Collagenated Cortico‐Cancellous Porcine Bone Grafts. A Study in Rabbit Maxillary Defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bone substitutes of collagenated porcine bone (CPB) have previously been shown to have osteoconductive properties and to be resorbed with time. The influence of different ratios between bone particles and collagen on bone response is not yet known. PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of different collagen ratios on the bone tissue responses to CPB grafts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight rabbits were used in the study. Bilateral bone defects, 5 x 8 x 3 mm, were created in the maxilla and were filled with 60% CPB/40% collagen gel or with 80% CPB/20% collagen gel. Animals were killed after 8 weeks for histological and morphometrical evaluations. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two biomaterials tested. Both materials showed a high degree of bone formation, 42% and 46%, respectively. Both materials were showing signs of resorption at time of sacrifice. CONCLUSIONS: Different collagen/CPB ratios do not influence the bone tissue responses to CPB. Both materials exhibited osteoconductive properties and were starting to be resorbed at 8 weeks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".