Fatigue Life of Bioactive Titanium Dental Implants Treated by Means of Grit‐Blasting and Thermo‐Chemical Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study focuses on the fatigue behavior of titanium dental implants as-received, with a grit-blasted surface and with a new bioactive surface treatment (2Steps). BACKGROUND: The 2Step process consists of (1) an initial grit-blasting process to produce a micro-rough surface, followed by (2) a combined thermo-chemical treatment that produces a potentially bioactive surface, that is, that can form an apatitic layer when exposed to biomimetic conditions in vitro. The 2Step treatment produced micro-rough and apatitic coating implants. METHODS: Residual stresses were determined by means of X-ray diffraction. The fatigue tests were carried out at 37°C on 500 dental implants, and the S-N curve was determined. The fatigue-crack nucleation for the different treatments was analyzed. RESULTS: The fatigue tests show that the grit-blasting process improves the fatigue life. This is a consequence of the layer of compressive residual stresses that the treatment generates in titanium surfaces. Dental implants that had its surfaced prepared with the 2Step procedure (grit-blasting and thermo-chemical treatment) had its fatigue life decreased by 10% due to the incorporation of oxygen to the surface and the relaxation of the compressive residual stress produced by the heat treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Thermo-chemical treatment is an excellent compromise between the improvement of bioactive and mechanical long-life behaviors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".