Early Bone Healing around Different Implant Bulk Designs and Surgical Techniques: A Study in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the bone healing response to different implant root shape designs in a dog model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three by eight millimeter screw-type short-pitch (SP) and large-pitch (LP) implants (Intra-Lock International, Boca Raton, FL, USA), and 4.5 x 6 mm plateau (P) implants (Bicon LLC, Boston, MA, USA) were placed along the proximal tibia of six dogs for 2 and 4 weeks. The combination of implant design and final osteotomy drilling resulted in healing chambers for the LP and P implants. The implants were nondecalcified processed to plates of approximately 30-microm thickness and were evaluated by optical microscopy for healing patterns and bone-to-implant contact (BIC). One-way analysis of variance at 95% level of significance and Tukey's test were utilized for multiple comparisons among the groups' BIC. RESULTS: Microscopy showed a approximately 150-microm region of newly deposited bone along the whole perimeter of SP implants, near the edge of the LP implant threads, and plateau tips for P implants. Rapid woven bone formation and filling was observed in regions where surgery and implant design resulted in healing chambers. No significant differences in BIC were observed (p > .75). CONCLUSIONS: Different implant design/surgical protocol resulted in varied bone healing patterns. However, the BIC and bone morphology evolution between implant designs were comparable. Regardless of the combination between implant design and final osteotomy drilling, bone morphology evolution from 2 to 4 weeks was comparable.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".