MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Novel Silicon Based Anodic Spark Deposition Treatment for Dental Implant

2008· article· en· W1979433246 on OpenAlexaff
Lertrit Sarinnaphakorn, Patrick Mesquida, Roberto Chiesa, Carmen Giordano, Michael R. Fenlon

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced materials research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceTitaniumOsseointegrationDeposition (geology)SiliconScanning electron microscopeAnodeDental implantImplantFilopodiaNanotechnologyBiomedical engineeringChemical engineeringComposite materialMetallurgyCellChemistryElectrodeSurgeryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface treated titanium implants are increasingly being used in dental and orthopaedic applications. This study examined the biological response of primary human alveolar osteoblast (aHOB) cells to a novel silicon based anodic spark deposition treated titanium surfaces. Three different titanium surfaces were investigated: anodic spark deposition (ASD) with silicon based (ASDSi), BioSpark™ (BS), and chemically etched (BioRough™, BR). Commercially pure titanium (cpTi) was the non-treated control surface. Physiological and biological evaluations were conducted on all test and control surfaces. Surface scanning (SEM, EDS, and AFM) confirmed a nano-topography, which was textured for all surfaces; and similar surface chemical composition (Ca and P), of significant was the Si peak on the ASDSi surface. Cell morphological study (SEM) showed good adhere and spreading over the surface, with metabolically active cells having extended filopodia. Biological response was observed with cell proliferation on all test surfaces for the period studied. Proliferation rate was seen to increase with time. This initial favourable cell response will be of benefit in the long term osseointegration of the implant surfaces.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced materials researchSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207