MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Immediate Functional Loading of Single‐Tooth TiO<sub>2</sub> Grit‐Blasted Implant Restoration. A Controlled Prospective Study in a Porcine Model. Part II: Histology and Histomorphometry

2007· article· en· W2015017659 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vasilios A. Bousdras, Frank Walboomers, John A. Jansen, J L Cunningham, Gordon Blunn, Aviva Petrie, Siegfried Jaecques, Ignace Naert, Steen Sindet‐Pedersen, Allen E. Goodship

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKU Leuven
KeywordsMasticatory forceImplantOsseointegrationCrown (dentistry)DentistryAbutmentSoft tissueMedicineOrthodonticsMaterials scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Evidently, there is a fast-moving shift from delayed to immediate implant loading. The hypothesis to be tested was that bone reactions adjacent to single TiO2-microthreaded implants exposed to immediate masticatory loading for 10 weeks after placement would modulate osseointegration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cylindrical- and tapered-designed implants (Astra Tech AB, Mölndal, Sweden) replaced first and third mandibular premolars respectively in 12 pigs. The animals were allocated into two groups based on soft and hard diet feeding. Each animal received, at random positions, four different masticatory loading conditions: implant with either (1) a cover screw only, (2) a healing abutment, (3) an implant with a crown without occlusal contact, or (4) an implant with a crown in contact with the antagonistic teeth. RESULTS: Histomorphometry showed that there were no statistically significant differences in bone-implant contact (BIC), bone mass inside/outside of the threads and soft tissue ingrowth ratio for all the implants at 10 weeks after placement irrespective of masticatory loading condition. Bone loss showed a trend of progressive increase for implants with a healing abutment toward implants with occlusal contact. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study rejected the hypothesis and could be explained by the fact that grit-blasted acid-etched implants were already placed in dense 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→