Cannabis Sativa Smoke Inhalation Decreases Bone Filling Around Titanium Implants: A Histomorphometric Study in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although the harmful effect of tobacco smoking on titanium implants has been documented, no studies have investigated the effects of cannabis sativa (marijuana) smoking. Thus, this study investigated whether marijuana smoke influences bone healing around titanium implants. MATERIALS: Thirty Wistar rats were used. After anesthesia, the tibiae surface was exposed and 1 screw-shaped titanium implant was placed bilaterally. The animals were randomly assigned to one of the following groups: control (n = 15) and marijuana smoke inhalation (MSI) 8 min/d (n = 15). Urine samples were obtained to detect the presence of tetra-hidro-cannabinoid. After 60 days, the animals were killed. The degree of bone-to-implant contact and the bone area within the limits of the threads of the implant were measured in the cortical (zone A) and cancellous bone (zone B). RESULTS: Tetra-hidro-cannabinoid in urine was positive only for the rats of MSI group. Intergroup analysis did not indicate differences in zone A-cortical bone (P > 0.01), however, a negative effect of marijuana smoke (MSI group) was observed in zone B-cancellous bone for bone-to-implant contact and bone area (Student's t test, P < 0.01) values. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the limitations of the present study, the deleterious impact of cannabis sativa smoke on bone healing may represent a new concern for implant success/failure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".