Direct High‐Frequency Stimulation of Peri‐Implant Rabbit Bone: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of direct high-frequency mechanical stimulation on the peri-implant tissue healing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 48 custom-made 2-mm diameter titanium implants were inserted in the tibial epiphyses of 12 rabbits. Half of the implants were stimulated by direct vibration (60±10 Hz) immediately after insertion for 1 and 4 weeks, respectively. The other half served as controls. The samples were collected after the animals were sacrificed and were histologically processed into paraffin sections and stained with haematoxylin and eosin. The bone fraction was measured in an area of 50 and 400 µm around the implant. To rate significant differences a one-way analysis of variance was used with α set at 5%. RESULTS: No significant difference in bone fraction was found between test and control groups. When the bone fractions of the 50 and 400 µm peri-implant regions were compared, a significantly larger bone fraction was found in the 50 µm peri-implant region for the 4-week stimulated group. CONCLUSION: Histomorphometric analyses could not reveal a pronounced effect of direct immediate high-frequency implant loading.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".