In Vivo Assessment of Bone Healing following Piezotome® Ultrasonic Instrumentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This pilot study evaluated the molecular, histologic, and radiographic healing of bone to instrumentation with piezoelectric or high speed rotary (R) devices over a 3-week healing period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fourteen Sprague-Dawley rats (Charles River Laboratories International, Inc., Wilmington, MA, USA) underwent bilateral tibial osteotomies prepared in a randomized split-leg design using Piezotome® (P1) (Satelec Acteon, Merignac, France), Piezotome 2® (P2) (Satelec Acteon), High-speed R instrumentation, or sham surgery (S). At 1 week, an osteogenesis array was used to evaluate differences in gene expression while quantitative analysis assessed percentage bone fill (PBF) and bone mineral density (BMD) in the defect, peripheral, and distant regions at 3 weeks. Qualitative histologic evaluation of healing osteotomies was also performed at 3 weeks. RESULTS: At 1 week, expression of 11 and 18 genes involved in bone healing was significantly (p < .05) lower following P1 and P2 instrumentation, respectively, relative to S whereas 16 and 4 genes were lower relative to R. No differences in PBF or BMD were detected between groups within the osteotomy defect. However, significant differences in PBF (p = .020) and BMD (p = .008) were noted along the peripheral region between P2 and R groups, being R the group with the lowest values. Histologically, smooth osteotomy margins were present following instrumentation using P1 or P2 relative to R. CONCLUSIONS: Piezoelectric instrumentation favors preservation of bone adjacent to osteotomies while variations in gene expression suggest differences in healing rates due to surgical modality. Bone instrumented by piezoelectric surgery appears less detrimental to bone healing than high-speed R device.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".