Evaluation of deproteinized bone mineral (DBM) as an onlay bone-graft in the rabbit mandible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate bone regeneration in a heterogenous, deproteinized bone mineral (DBM) when used as an onlay graft. Materials and methods In this study, eight rabbits received two titanium bone graft holders (TBGHs), one on the left and one on the right lateral surface of the mandible. Each TBGH possessed two cylindrical chambers, which were perforated with numerous sub-millimeter pores. On the experimental side of the jaw, the chambers were filled with DBM particles (Bio-Oss®, Geistlich Pharmaceutical AG, Walhusen, Switzerland). Chambers on the opposite (control) side of the jaw were empty (no DBM). Following TBGH placement both the control and experimental TBGHs were covered with a barrier layer of collagen membrane (Bio-Gide®, Geistlich Pharmaceutical AG, Walhusen, Switzerland). After twelve weeks, sections of the mandible were harvested for radiographic and histomorphometric evaluation. Results New bone formation was seen in both test and control chambers. However, the newly generated bone was greater in the experimental (DBM) group (18.41%) than in the control group (5.31%). The difference was statistically significant ( p < 0.001). Upon quantification of the radio-dense area from the radiographs, there was significantly more bone and/or graft in the experimental group (12.96 mm 2 ± 1.48) than the control group (8.59 mm 2 ± 3.54) ( p < 0.001). Similarly, the DBM chambers were filled to a significantly greater height (2.73 mm ± 0.24) than the control chambers (1.83 mm ± 0.72) ( p < 0.001). Conclusion DBM can enhance greater new bone formation when used as an onlay graft, underneath a rigid barrier.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".