Bone Healing around Titanium and Titanium Nitride‐Coated Dental Implants with Three Surfaces: An Experimental Study in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Titanium nitride (TiN) has been used in many fields as a coating of surgical instruments, with the purpose of creating materials more resistant to wear and corrosion and also reducing adhesion. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the biocompatibility of TiN-coated dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five rats were used in this study. One hundred eighty 2 mm x 2 mm implants (P.H.I. San Vittore Olona, Milano, Italy) were used. The implants were divided into the following three groups: Group 1 (n = 60): 30 machined and 30 machined coated with Group 2 (n = 60): 30 sandblasted and 30 sandblasted coated with Group 3 (n = 60): 30 titanium plasma sprayed, 30 titanium plasma sprayed and coated with TiN Four implants were placed in each rat, two implants coated with TiN on the right tibia and two uncoated implants on the left. The animals were killed after 5, 10, 20, 30, or 60 days. Another 18 implants were used for surface roughness analysis. RESULTS: The present study showed that the healing around the TiN-coated implants was similar to that observed around the uncoated surfaces. CONCLUSIONS: TiN coating demonstrated a good biocompatibility, did not have untoward effects on the periimplant bone formation, and did not change the surface roughness values.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".