MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effects of a Mechanical Barrier on the Integration of Cortical Onlay Bone Grafts Placed Simultaneously with Endosseous Implant

2002· article· en· W2027566354 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luiz Z. Salata, Lars Rasmusson, Karl‐Erik Kahnberg

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsseointegrationDentistryImplantMedicineResorptionPolytetrafluoroethyleneBone resorptionCortical boneTitaniumBarrier membraneSurgeryMaterials scienceMembraneAnatomyChemistryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous experimental studies on onlay bone graft integration have shown either advantages or disadvantages to the use of mechanical barriers. This indicates that the role played by the biologic properties of transplanted bone and membrane in graft revascularization and bone remodeling has not yet been established. The outcomes regarding osseointegration of titanium dental implants applied in such a condition are still contradictory. PURPOSE: The rabbit's radius model that is grafted onto the mandibular lower border and covered by membrane can reproduce a challenging experimental situation to preliminarily study the factors involved in osseointegration under deprived blood vessels source. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen New Zealand White rabbits had a 2.5-cm segment of the right radius osteoectomized and fixed onto the right mandibular lower border using titanium screws. Two screw-shaped titanium implants (2.5 mm wide yen 2.5 mm long) were installed 7 mm apart in the mid length of the grafted bone. In experimental sites, the graft with the implants and graft-host bone junction were covered by expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) membrane; control sites were left uncovered. Eight animals from the experimental group and six animals from the control group were sacrificed at 6 and 24 weeks after surgery. Ground sections obtained from en bloc tissues containing graft, implants, and recipient bone were subjected to histologic evaluation and histomorphometric analysis (area occupied by the graft and bone-to-implant contact). RESULTS: The graft showed significantly more resorption after 24 weeks than at 6 weeks (p < or =.05) irrespective of the treatment (with or without membrane), although the amount of new bone was greater at 24 weeks in sites where a membrane was covering the graft. Compared with 6 weeks postoperatively, the bone-to-implant contact was considerably improved at 24 weeks (p < or =.05), and the membrane seemed beneficial for implant osseointegration when compared with unprotected sites (p .05). As a result of graft resorption, the amount of soft tissue was considerably expanded in sites beneath membrane, accompanied by a sustained process of trabecular bone deposition close to the barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Cortical onlay grafts covered by membrane demonstrated delayed remodeling, probably as a consequence of a hindered process of graft revascularization. Grafts covered by membrane might rely on previous host bone resorption both to become revascularized and to remodel. The findings that the membrane-protected grafts were most resorbed at 24 weeks might be attributable to better implant osseointegration, because the fixtures were exposed to greater mechanical stimulation in these sites. key words: bone regeneration, implant osseointegration, onlay bone-graft

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations29
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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