The Soft Tissue Immunologic Response to Hydroxyapatite‐Coated Transmucosal Implant Surfaces: A Study in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the soft tissue response in humans immunologically and histologically after placement of mini-implants coated with or without nano-size hydroxyapatite coatings. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Commercially pure (cp) titanium mini-implants (n = 13) or nano-hydroxyapatite-coated ones (n = 12) were randomly placed into partially edentulous jaws. Crevicular fluid was sampled 1 week after placement and subjected to quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis to explore the inflammatory markers. After 8 weeks, implants and surrounding soft and hard tissue were trephined, and undecalcified ground sections were prepared. Inflammatory cell accumulation within a defined region of interest in the soft tissue was quantified histomorphometrically. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in immunological response to the different implant surfaces were found for IL-6 (p = .438), TGF-β2 (p = .467), MMP-8 (p = .758), CCL-3 (p = .758), IL-8 (p = .771), and IL-1β (0.771). Histomorphometric evaluation presented no statistically significant difference between the two mini-implant surfaces with regards to number of inflammatory cells (p = .669). CONCLUSION: Nano-hydroxyapatite-coated surfaces in the transmucosal region yielded similar inflammatory response and is suggested to be as biocompatible as commercially pure titanium surfaces.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".