Titanium crystal orientation as a tool for the improved and regulated cell attachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cell adhesion is a fundamental process that controls cell proliferation, migration, and differentiation and is crucial for biomaterial-tissue integration. Osteoblast attachment on the surfaces of implant materials is, therefore, essential for the proper function of any implant in which osseointegration is required. Although many reports are available on osteoblast attachment using different surface modification, there is no specific report, so far, that investigates the effect of atomic order of specific crystallographic orientation of substrates on cell behavior. A novel coculture system is proposed to show the differential response of preosteoblast and fibroblast cell lines to the titanium single-crystal substrates. Our investigation has shown that surface recognition by the cell is influenced by the atomic structure of the surface leading to cell-type-specific adhesion. The degree of preosteoblast attachment is significantly higher on the Ti-(1120), whereas the fibroblast adhesion is increased on the Ti-(1010). This demonstrates that the three distinct faces of titanium substrates differ greatly in their capacity to serve as cell adhesive substrates. It also provides clear evidence for the role of crystal structure in regulating and improving cell-substrate interactions relevant for the optimal function of bone implant materials.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".