Bone formation at recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein‐2‐coated titanium implants in the posterior mandible (Type II bone) in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional oral/maxillofacial implants reach osseointegration over several months during which the titanium fixtures interact with alveolar bone. The objective of this study was to determine if adsorbing recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) onto a titanium porous oxide (TPO) implant surface might enhance or accelerate local bone formation and support osseointegration in a large animal oral/maxillofacial orthotopic model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Endosseous implants with a TPO surface were installed into the edentulated posterior mandible in eight adult Hound Labrador mongrel dogs. The implant surface had been adsorbed with rhBMP-2 at 0.2 or 4.0 mg/ml. TPO implants without rhBMP-2 served as control. Treatments were randomized between jaw quadrants. Mucosal flaps were advanced and sutured leaving the implants submerged. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were made immediately post-surgery, at day 10 (suture removal), and week 4 and 8 post-surgery. The animals received fluorescent bone markers at week 3, 4, and at week 8 post-surgery, when they were euthanized for histologic analysis. RESULTS: TPO implants coated with rhBMP-2 exhibited dose-dependent bone remodelling including immediate resorption and formation of implant adjacent bone, and early establishment of clinically relevant osseointegration. The resulting bone-implant contact, although clinically respectable, appeared significantly lower for rhBMP-2-coated implants compared with the control [rhBMP-2 (0.2 mg/ml) 43.3+/-10.8%versus 71.7+/-7.8%, p<0.02; rhBMP-2 (4.0 mg/ml) 35.4+/-10.6%versus 68.2+/-11.0%, p<0.03]. CONCLUSIONS: rhBMP-2 adsorbed onto TPO implant surfaces initiates dose-dependent peri-implant bone re-modelling resulting in the formation of normal, physiologic bone and clinically relevant osseointegration within 8 weeks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".