Simulation of Impact Test for Determining “Health” of Percutaneous Bone Anchored Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an ongoing requirement for a clinically relevant, noninvasive technique to monitor the integrity of percutaneous implants used for dental restorations, bone-anchored hearing aids, and to retain extra-oral prostheses (ear, eye, nose, etc). Because of the limitations of conventional diagnostic techniques (CT, MRI), mechanical techniques that measure the dynamic response of the implant-abutment system are being developed. This paper documents a finite element analysis that simulates a transient response to mechanical impact testing using contact elements. The detailed model allows for a specific interface between the implant and bone and characterizes potential clinical situations including loss of bone margin height, loss of osseointegration, and development of a soft connective tissue layer at the bone-implant interface. The results also show that the expected difference in interface stiffness between soft connective tissue and osseointegrated bone will cause easily measurable changes in the response of the implant/abutment system. With respect to the loss of bone margin height, changes in the order of 0.2 mm should be detectable, suggesting that this technique is at least as sensitive as radiography. A partial loss of osseointegration, while not being as readily evident as a bone margin loss, would still be detectable for losses as small as 0.5 mm.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".