MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of a New Titanium‐Zirconium Dental Implant: A Biomechanical and Histological Comparative Study in the Mini Pig

2010· article· en· W1959499171 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jan Gottlow, Michel Dard, Fred Kjellson, Marcel Obrecht, Lars Sennerby

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsseointegrationImplantDentistryTitaniumMolarDental implantMaterials scienceMandible (arthropod mouthpart)MedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Titanium zirconium alloy with 13-17% zirconium (TiZr1317) shows significantly better mechanical attributes than pure Ti with respect to elongation and fatigue strength. This material may be suitable for thin implants and implant components exposed to high mechanical constraints. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that TiZr1317 and Ti implants show comparable osseointegration and stability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mandibular premolars (P1, P2, P3) and the first molar (M1) in 12 adult miniature pigs were extracted 3 months prior to the study. Six specially designed implants made from Ti (commercially pure, Grade 4) or TiZr1317 (Roxolid®, Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) with a hydrophilic sandblasted and acid-etched (SLActive, Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) surface were placed in each mandible; three standard implants modified for evaluation of removal torque (RT) in one side and three bone-chamber implants for histologic observations in the contralateral side. RT tests were performed after 4 weeks when also the bone chamber implants and surrounding tissue were biopsied for histologic analyses in ground sections. RESULTS: The RT results indicated significantly higher stability (p=0.013) for TiZr1317 (230.9±22.4Ncm) than for Ti implants (204.7±24.0Ncm). The histology showed similar osteoconductive properties for both implant types. Histomorphometric measurements showed a statistically significant higher (p=0.023) bone area within the chamber for the TiZr1317 implants (45.5±13.2%) than did the Ti implants (40.2±15.2%). No difference was observed concerning the bone to implant contact between the groups with 72.3±20.5% for Ti and 70.2±17.3% for TiZr1317 implants. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that the TiZr1317 implant with a hydrophilic sandblasted and acid-etched surface showed similar or even stronger bone tissue responses than the Ti control implant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.334
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations168
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207