Differences in osseointegration rate due to implant surface geometry can be explained by local tissue strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental evidence indicates that the surface geometry of bone-interfacing implants influences the nature and rate of tissues formed around implants. In a previously reported animal model study, we showed that non-functional, press-fitted porous-surfaced implants placed in rabbit femoral condyle sites osseointegrated more rapidly than plasma-sprayed implants. We hypothesized that the accelerated osseointegration observed with the porous-surfaced design was the result of this design providing a local mechanical environment that was more favourable for bone formation. In the present study, we tested this hypothesis using finite element analysis and homogenization methods to predict the local strains in the pre-mineralized tissues formed around porous-surfaced and plasma-sprayed implants. We found that, for loading perpendicular to the implant interface, the porous surface structure provided a large region that experienced low distortional and volumetric strains, whereas the plasma-sprayed implant provided little local strain protection to the healing tissue. The strain protected region, which was within the pores of the sintered porous surface layer. corresponded to the region where the difference in the amount of mineralization between the two implant designs was the greatest. Low distortional and volumetric strains are believed to favour osteogenesis, and therefore the model results provide initial support for the hypothesis that the porous-surfaced geometry provides a local mechanical environment that favours more rapid bone formation in certain situations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".