Mechanical regulation of localized and appositional bone formation around bone-interfacing implants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The local mechanical environment around bone-interfacing implants determines, in large part, whether bone formation leading to functional osseointegration will occur. Previous attempts to relate local peri-implant tissue strains to tissue formation have not accounted for implant surface geometry, which has been shown to influence early tissue healing in vivo. Furthermore, the process by which mechanically regulated peri-implant bone formation occurs has not been considered previously. In the current study, we used a unit cell approach and the finite element method to predict the local tissue strains around porous-surfaced and plasma-sprayed implants, and compared the predictions to patterns of bone formation reported in earlier in vivo experiments. Based on the finite element predictions, we determined that appositional bone formation occurred when the magnitudes of the strain components at the tissue-host bone interface were <8%. Localized, de novo bone formation occurred when the distortional tissue strains were less than approximately 3%. Based on these threshold tissue strains, we propose a mechanoregulatory model to relate local tissue strains to the process of peri-implant bone formation. The mechanoregulatory model is novel in that it predicts both appositional and localized bone formation and its predictions are dependent on implant surface geometry. The model provides initial criteria with which the osseointegration potential of bone-interfacing implants may be evaluated, particularly under conditions of immediate or early loading.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it