Histologic Evaluation of a Human Immediately Loaded Titanium Implant with a Porous Anodized Surface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several researchers have demonstrated, in the past decade, in clinical and histologic studies, that immediate loading can be successfully used in implant dentistry. Many factors are thought to be of importance in obtaining mineralized tissues at the interface. One of these factors is the implant surface characteristics. Recently, an implant with a new porous anodized surface has been introduced in the market. PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to histologically evaluate a clinically retrieved immediately loaded implant with a porous anodized surface. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After a 6-month loading period, an immediately loaded implant with a porous anodized surface that had been inserted in the posterior maxilla was retrieved. RESULTS: Histology showed that mineralized tissue was present at the interface and the bone-implant contact percentage was about 60%. No gaps or fibrous tissue or inflammatory infiltrate were present at the interface. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that immediate loading of dental implants has no untoward effects on the formation of mineralized tissues at the interface. Immediate loading is a possible alternative in implant dentistry. key words: dental implants, histology, immediate loading, oxide coating, porous 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".