Maxillary sinus floor elevation using a tissue‐engineered bone complex with OsteoBone<sup>™</sup> and bMSCs in rabbits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of maxillary sinus floor elevation by a tissue-engineered bone complex with OsteoBone(trade mark) and bone marrow stromal cells (bMSCs) in rabbits. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Autologous bMSCs from adult New Zealand rabbits were cultured and combined with OsteoBone(trade mark) at a concentration of 20 x 10(6) cells/ml in vitro. Twenty-four animals were used and randomly allocated into groups. For each time point, 16 maxillary sinus floor elevation surgeries were made bilaterally in eight animals and randomly repaired by bMSCs/material (i.e. OsteoBone), material, autogenous bone and blood clot (n=4 per group). A polychrome sequential fluorescent labeling was also performed post-operatively. The animals were sacrificed 2, 4 and 8 weeks after the procedure and evaluated histologically as well as histomorphometrically. RESULTS: New bone area significantly decreased from weeks 2 to 8 in the blood clot group, while bone area in the autologous bone reduced from weeks 4 to 8. In both groups, a significant amount of fatty tissue appeared at week 8. Accordingly, augmented height in both groups was also significantly decreased from weeks 2 to 8. The bone area in the material-alone group as well as in the bMSCs/material group, on the other hand, increased over time. Significantly more newly formed bone area and mineralization was observed in the center of the raised space in the bMSCs/material group than in the material-alone group. The augmented height was maintained in these two groups throughout the course of this study. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that OsteoBone can successfully be used as a bone graft substitute and that the combination of this material with bMSCs can effectively promote new bone formation in sinus elevation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".