Retrieved Implants from Irradiated Sites in Humans: A Histologic/Histomorphometric Investigation of Oral and Craniofacial Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this report was to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the tissue response to bone-anchored implants retrieved from irradiated sites in patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The material consists of 23 consecutively received Brånemark implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) placed in pre- or postoperatively irradiated sites. Twenty-two of the 23 implants were suitable for histologic evaluation of undecalcified sections in the light microscope. RESULTS: The oral implants with shorter time in situ demonstrated sparse bone to implant contact with mainly dense connective tissue in the interface. However, for implants with longer time in situ, high amounts of bone-implant contact and bone fill of threads were noted. The mean values of bone-implant contact and bone area within the thread were calculated to 40% (16-94) and 70% (13-96), respectively. The craniofacial implants, with the exception of two implants lined with a capsular formation, demonstrated mature and newly formed bone at the bone-implant interface. The mean value for bone-metal contact was calculated to 45 and 53% for two specimens. The mean value for bone area within the thread ranged from 65 to 88% for three specimens. CONCLUSION; The possibility to achieve bone anchorage of implants in irradiated tissue was supported by the findings in this study. However, due to limited material, conclusions with regard to radiation dose and bone tissue response to implants cannot be stated.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".