Evaluation of the Surface Treatment on Bone Healing in a Transmucosal 1‐mm Area of Implant Abutment: An Experimental Study in the Rabbit Tibia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of the present study was to investigate the effect on bone tissue healing patterns in 1-mm area treated in the transmucosal surface of the abutment in the tibia of rabbits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six abutments were divided into two groups: control group (CG) with 14 abutments with smooth surface and experimental group (EG) with 32 abutments presenting a 1-mm area of the transmucosal surface treated through sandblasting with microparticles of titanium oxide followed by acid etching. Five samples of each group were analyzed using an optical laser profilometer for surface roughness characterization. Thirty-six Morse taper implants (3.5 mm in diameter and 7 mm in length) were inserted 1.5 mm subcrestal into the tibiae of nine rabbits. The implants were removed after 8, 10, and 12 weeks for histological analysis. The histological slides were prepared and analyzed qualitatively in relation to the new bone at the interface bone-abutment and quantitatively, in relation to bone height from the base of the implant. These data were computed and statistically compared inside the groups using analysis of variance and the U-test between groups for same time. RESULTS: Both groups exhibited bone growth in the direction and over the surface of the abutments, with good healing. However, the EG group showed an increased height of bone formation in the crestal direction, and highly significant differences were observed (p < .001) between these measured values. CONCLUSIONS: Under the limitations of the present study, histological follow-up at 8, 10, and 12 weeks showed that transmucosal 1-mm area of implant abutment with treatment of the surface facilitated the maintenance of bone height around the abutment compared with the same abutment with the totally smooth surface.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".