Bone Regeneration Using Porous Titanium Particles versus Bovine Hydroxyapatite: A Sinus Lift Study in Rabbits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The first objective of this study was to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the bone formation process, particularly the long-term behavior and three-dimensional volume stability of subsinusal bone regeneration, using titanium (Ti) or bovine hydroxyapatite (BHA) granules, in a rabbit model. The second objective was to evaluate the effect of the hydration of the BHA particles with a therapeutic concentration of doxycycline solution on the osteogenesis and biomaterial resorption. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rabbits underwent a double sinus lift procedure using one of three materials: grade 1 porous Ti particles, BHA, or BHA hydrated with doxycycline solution (0.1mg/ml) (BHATTC). Animals were sacrificed after 1 week, 5 weeks, or 6 months. Samples were analyzed using µCT and nondecalcified histology. RESULTS: The materials used in each of the three groups allowed an optimal bone formation; bone quantities and densities were not statistically different between the three groups. At 6 months, more stable three-dimensional volume stability was found with Ti and BHATTC (p=.0033). At 5 weeks and 6 months, bone to material contact corroborating osteoconduction was significantly higher with BHA and BHATTC than with Ti (p<.0001). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Even though the studied biomaterials displayed different architectures, they are relevant candidates for sinus lift bone augmentation prior to dental implants because they allow adequate three-dimensional stability and osteogenesis. However, to recommend the clinical use of Ti, both an observation on the drilling effects of Ti particles and clinical trials are needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".