Effect of Solely Applied Platelet‐Rich Plasma on Osseous Regeneration Compared to Bio‐Oss®: A Morphometric and Densitometric Study on Rabbit Calvaria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in bone augmentation procedures is well documented; however, the exact benefit of this material is not yet established. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of using PRP, when only used, and compare it to Bio-Oss (Geistlich Biomaterials, Wolhusen, Switzerland) in vertical bone augmentation capacity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was performed in calvaria of eight adult female New Zealand rabbits using titanium bone conduction cylinder. Two titanium cylinders were fixed into perforated slits made on the parietal bone of each rabbit. On each rabbit, one chamber was grafted with Bio-Oss, and the contralateral was filled with PRP. Animals were sacrificed 4 weeks after intervention and biopsies were taken. Densitometric, histological, and histomorphometric analyses were performed to evaluate bone mineral density, vertical bone augmentation, and remaining graft volume, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed with Mann-Whitney test, using a significance level of p < .05. RESULTS: Densitometric and histomorphometric data analysis revealed that mean bone mineral densities and bone augmentation were significantly lower in the cylinders treated with PRP (p < .0001) 4 weeks after implantation. CONCLUSION: This study showed no beneficial effect of using PRP on osseous regeneration. In addition, it was emphasized that Bio-Oss presents good osteoconductive properties by achieving suitable bone volume values.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".