Ultrastructure of the Interface Between Titanium and Surrounding Tissue in Rat Tibiae – A Comparison Study on Titanium‐Coated and ‐Uncoated Plastic Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were to prepare experimental titanium-coated plastic implants suitable for electron microscopy examination of the titanium-bone interface and the response of tissue surrounding titanium, and to histologically compare surrounding tissue responses in coated and uncoated implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experimental plastic implants were prepared from a plastic rod coated with a thin film of titanium. Plastic implants without coatings were used as controls. The implants were placed into tibiae of 10-week-old male rats. The specimens with implants were harvested 4 weeks after placement and observed under a light microscope, a transmission electron microscope, and a scanning electron microscope. RESULTS: In the transmission electron microscopy, the titanium layer of the experimental implant was a uniform layer that was approximately 150- to 250-nm wide. The new bone formation was observed around both titanium-coated implants and plastic implants. However, there was no direct bone contact with the plastic implant. DISCUSSION: The responses of tissue surrounding the experimental implants varied. Under an electron microscope, the following areas were observed: (1) an area with a direct contact between the titanium and bone, (2) an area at the interface where an amorphous layer was observed, (3) an area with progressing calcification in the surrounding tissue where the cells were adjacent to the titanium surface, and (4) an area in which bone resorption and apposition were observed and remodeling was thought to be occurring. CONCLUSION: The experimental titanium was homogenous and was considered to be highly useful in observing the responses of the surrounding tissue to the titanium surface.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".