MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Influence of Interimplant Distance on Bone Microstructure: A Histomorphometric Study in Dogs

2008· article· en· W2028476325 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tonino Traini, Arthur B. Novaes, Vula Papalexiou, Adriano Piattelli

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDental alveolusOsseointegrationDentistrySignificant differenceImplantSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The microstructure of the crestal alveolar bone is important for both the maintenance of osseointegration and the location of the gingival soft tissues. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the bone microstructure of the alveolar bone and of the interimplant bone in implants inserted at different interimplant distances. The mandibular bilateral premolars of six dogs were extracted, and after 12 weeks, each dog received eight implants, for a total of 48 implants. Two pairs of implants, one for each hemiarch, were separated by 2 mm (group 1) and by 3 mm (group 2). After 12 weeks, the implants received temporary acrylic prostheses. After four more weeks, metallic crowns substituted the temporary prostheses. After an additional 8 weeks the animals were sacrificed and the hemimandibles were removed, dissected, and processed. The longitudinal collagen fiber orientation was 43.2% for the alveolar bone; it was 30.3% for the 2-mm group and 43.9% for the 3-mm group. There was a statistically significant difference between the 2-mm and 3-mm groups (p < .05). The orientation of transverse collagen fibers was 47.8% for the alveolar bone; it was 37.3% for the 2-mm group and 56.3% for the 3-mm group. There was a statistically significant difference between the 2-mm and 3-mm groups (p < .05). The marrow spaces were 34.87% for the alveolar bone, 52.3% for the 2-mm group, and 59.9% for the 3-mm group. There was a statistically significant difference between the alveolar bone and the 3-mm group (p < .05). The low mineral density index was 36.29 for the alveolar bone, 46.76 for the 2-mm group, and 17.91 for the 3-mm group. There was a statistically significant difference between the 2-mm and 3-mm groups (p < .05). The high mineral density was 87.57 for the alveolar bone, 72.58 for the 2-mm group, and 84.91 for the 3-mm group. There was a statistically significant difference between the alveolar bone and the 2-mm group (p < .05). The collagen fiber orientation resulted in statistically significant differences in both the 2-mm and 3-mm groups compared with the alveolar bone. The marrow spaces appeared significantly increased in the 3-mm group compared with the alveolar bone. The low mineral density index was significantly higher in the 2-mm group, while the high mineral density index was significantly higher in the alveolar bone. In conclusion, the interimplant distance should not be less than 3 mm.

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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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