Influence of mixing method on the cement temperature‐mixing time history and doughing time of three acrylic cements for vertebroplasty
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acrylic cements are increasingly being used to augment osteoporotic vertebrae in a procedure called vertebroplasty. Two significant factors that may complicate the use of acrylic cements are: (a) short handling time, which may result in insufficient filling of the vertebra; and (b) exothermic setting (curing) behavior, which may result in thermal damage of the surrounding tissue. It has been previously reported that mixing the cement components under oscillation, as compared to manual mixing, increases the handling time. More specifically, it seems that oscillatory mixing slows down the cement polymerization process and, consequently, widens the time window during which cement is injectable. However, the effect of oscillatory mixing on the exothermic setting behavior of cement undergoing polymerization has not been examined. In this study, the exothermic setting behavior of three commercially available acrylic cements--Antibiotic Simplex, DP-Pour&trade, and Vertebroplastic--were examined for both manual and oscillatory mixing methods. For each combination of cement and mixing method, the parameters that were measured were the exothermic setting curve (and hence the cement setting temperature and setting time) and the cement doughing time. It was found that oscillatory mixing had no significant effect on any of these parameters. Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that, for the tested cements, the setting process is a reaction-controlled process rather than a diffusion-controlled one. Clinically, this implies that oscillatory mixing may be used to increase the working period for acrylic cements without increasing the risk of thermal damage to surrounding tissue.
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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it