Bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants with different surface characteristics subjected to static load. A study in the dog (II)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to compare bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants with either a titanium plasma-sprayed (TPS) or a machined surface subjected to lateral static loading induced by an expansion force. In 3 labrador dogs, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th mandibular premolars were extracted bilaterally. 12 weeks later, 2 implants with a TPS surface were placed in one side and 2 implants with a machined surface were placed in the contralateral side. Twelve weeks after implant installation, crowns, connected in pairs with orthodontic expansion screws, were fitted to the implants and a 0.6 mm wide expansion was initiated. Clinical registrations, standardized radiographs and fluorochrome labeling were carried out during a 24-week period of loading. Biopsies with the implants in situ were harvested and processed for ground sectioning. The sections were subjected to histologic and histometric examination. A higher marginal bone level was observed around implants with a TPS surface compared to machined implants. Furthermore, the values describing the amount of bone-to-implant contact at the bone/implant interface as well as the density of the peri-implant bone were lower at the machined than at the TPS implants.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".