Bone Reactions to Oxidized Titanium Implants with Electrochemical Anion Sulphuric Acid and Phosphoric Acid Incorporation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The importance of the surface properties of implants for a successful osseointegration has been emphasized. It is generally known that bone response to implant surfaces is considerably related to the various surface properties. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate bone tissue reactions to multifactorial biocompatibility of the surface oxide of electrochemically oxidized titanium implants. The ultimate objective was to improve surface quality, resulting in enhancement of clinical outcomes of osseointegrated implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different surface types of commercially pure titanium (c.p. Ti) implants were prepared. Turned implants were used for controls and test implants were prepared by the micro arc oxidation (MAO) method, either in sulphuric acid (S implants) or in phosphoric acid (P implants). Implants were inserted in the femur and tibia of 10 mature New Zealand White rabbits. The bone response was evaluated by biomechanical tests, histology, and histomorphometry. The follow-up time was 6 weeks. RESULTS: The mean peak values of the removal torque showed significant differences between control and test S implants (p =.022) but showed no significant differences between control and test P implants (p =.195) or between test S and test P implants (p =.457). In addition, the histomorphometric comparisons of the bone-to-metal contact around entire implants demonstrated 186% increase in S implants (p =.028) and 232% increase in P implants (p =.028) compared with the paired control groups. Quantification of the bone area in the threads did not show any significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: The present results suggest that the primary mode of action in strong bone response to S implants is mechanical interlocking, and to P implants, it is biochemical interaction. It is possible that the phosphate groups in the titanium oxide of P implants provide potential chemical bonding sites for calcium ions and hydroxyapatite of the bone matrix during biologic mineralization. key words: bone responses, histomorphometry, oxidized implants, removal torque test, surface oxide properties
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".