Experimental Evaluation in Rabbits of the Effects of Thread Concavities in Bone Formation with Different Titanium Implant Surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Differences in implant microtexture are important in conditioning the bone response around dental implants. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was an evaluation of the bone response in machined (M), blasted with apatitic calcium phosphate (tricalcium phosphate/hydrossyapatite [HA] blend) particles (resorbable blast texturing [RBT]), and coated with HA implants. METHODS: A total of 48 (16 M, 16 RBT, and 16 HA) threaded screw-shaped implants were inserted into the tibia of 12 rabbits. The specimens were retrieved after 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks and processed for histology. RESULTS: All experimental groups showed an increase of the bone-implant contact percentages through the study period. Higher and highly statistically significant differences were found in the percentages of bone observed in the concavities rather than in the convexities of the implants retrieved after 1, 2, and 4 weeks, while no significant differences were found after 8 weeks. In the different time periods, higher percentages of bone-implant contact were found in the RBT and HA-coated implants both in the concavities and in the convexities, but these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The newly formed bone present in the concavity of the threads was not influenced by the implant surface in the first healing period, while after 4 to 8 weeks, the percentage of bone observed in the concavities and convexities was similar. Additional histological studies are necessary to further evaluate the critical role of the concave geometry in bone differentiation and formation around dental implants.
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) | 0.000 | 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".