Relative Contributions of Osteogenic Tissues to New Bone Formation in Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis: Histological and Histomorphometrical Evaluation in a Rat Calvaria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relative contributions of different, potential factors to new bone formation in periosteal distraction osteogenesis are unknown. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to assess the influence of original bone and periosteum on bone formation during periosteal distraction osteogenesis in a rat calvarial model by means of histology and histomorphometry. METHODS: A total of 48 rats were used for the experiment. The contribution of the periosteum was assessed by either intact or incised periosteum or an occlusive versus a perforated distraction plate. The cortical bone was either left intact or perforated. Animals were divided in eight experimental groups considering the three possible treatment modalities. All animals were subjected to a 7-day latency period, a 10-day distraction period and a 7-day consolidation period. The newly formed bone was analyzed histologically and histomorphometrically. RESULTS: New, mainly woven bone was found in all groups. Differences in the maximum height of new bone were observed and depended on location. Under the distraction plate, statistically significant differences in maximum bone height were found between the group with perforations in both cortical bone and distraction plate and the group without such perforations. CONCLUSIONS: If the marrow cavities were not opened, the contribution to new bone formation was dominant from the periosteum. If the bone perforations opened the marrow cavities, a significant contribution to new bone formation originated from the native bone.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".