Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous experimental studies have shown a higher degree of bone-implant contact for surface-enlarged implants compared with machined implants. Yet, there is insufficient evidence that such implants show higher stability and an increased survival rate. PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to study the integration and stability of grit-blasted implants with retention elements on the implant neck, with and without marginal bone defects, compared with machined implants without retention elements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After tooth extraction of the mandibular premolars in six dogs, two grit-blasted, partly microthreaded Astra Tech implants and one standard Brånemark implant were bilaterally placed in each dog. On one side, 3 yen 3 mm large buccal defects were created, to expose three to four implant threads. The contralateral side served as control, and no defects were made. The animals were sacrificed after 4 months of healing. Implant stability was measured using resonance frequency analysis at implant installation and after 4 months of healing. Histologic and histomorphometric evaluation was made after 4 months of healing. RESULTS: Resonance frequency analysis indicated that all implants in the test and control groups were osseointegrated after 4 months, with a tendency toward higher implant stability for the Astra Tech implants. There was a statistically significant higher increase in resonance frequency for the Astra test implants compared with their corresponding controls. Histology and histomorphometry showed well-integrated implants with varying degrees of bone repair at the defect sites. The greater bone-implant contact for the Astra implants was statistically significant. No significant difference between the implants in amount of bone filling the threads was recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The Astra Tech implants tested showed a higher degree of bone-implant contact and higher level of bone regenerated at defect sites compared with the Brånemark implants. Resonance frequency analysis demonstrated a significantly higher increase in the Astra test implants compared with their control groups than did the Brånemark test implants versus their controls.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.153 | 0.076 |
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".