A Histomorphometric and Biomechanical Study of the Effect of Delayed Titanium Implant Placement in Irradiated Rabbit Bone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The time interval from irradiation to implant surgery has been considered an impact factor for implant integration in irradiated bone and the importance of a long interval between the radiation trauma and reconstructive bone surgery has been suggested. PURPOSE: The present study was undertaken to histomorphometrically and biomechanically analyze the effect of delayed implant placement on bone healing around titanium implants in irradiated bone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rabbits were given a single dose of 15 Gy Cobalt60 radiation to one hind leg, the other hind leg serving as a control. Titanium screws were inserted into the femur and tibia directly and at 12 weeks and 52 weeks after irradiation. The implants were evaluated after a healing time of 8 weeks. The torques necessary for removal of the implants were measured. Histomorphometry with respect to bone-metal contact and amount of bone surrounding the implants was performed. RESULTS: The biomechanical force necessary to unscrew the titanium implants in the irradiated bone was significantly increased after a resting period of 1 year between irradiation and implant placement, compared to direct implant placement. The histomorphometric evaluation showed an improvement of bone healing around the implants in the irradiated bone, both after a resting period of 12 weeks and after 1 year compared to direct implant placement. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that a relatively long interval between irradiation and reconstructive bone surgery will improve osseointegration of titanium implants in irradiated rabbit bone.
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 | 0.000 | 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".