"Biologic width"and crestal bone remodeling with sintered porous-surfaced dental implants: a study in dogs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to obtain histometric measurements of bone and peri-implant mucosal tissue contact with implants of 2 sintered porous-surfaced designs. The "short-collar" design had a collar height (smooth coronal region) of 0.75 mm, while the "long-collar" model had a smooth coronal region of 1.8 mm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants (2 per side) were placed in healed mandibular extraction sites of 4 beagle dogs using a submerged technique. After 4 weeks of healing, they were uncovered and used to support fixed partial dentures for a 9-month period. After sacrifice, specimens were retrieved and nondemineralized sections were examined histometrically to determine the most coronal bone-to-implant contact (first BIC) using the microgap as a reference and standard mucosal parameters of "biologic width." RESULTS: Significant (P = .001) differences in first BIC were found between designs (1.97 mm for long-collar versus 1.16 mm for short-collar implants) for posteriorly located implants but not for anteriorly located ones (1.21 mm versus 1.38 mm; P = .40). If crestal bone loss involved sintered surface, fibrous connective tissue ingrowth was observed to replace lost bone. No significant differences in peri-implant mucosal measurements (total peri-implant mucosal thickness; length of the epithelial component of this mucosa, and thickness of the connective tissue component) were detected between implant designs. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that "biologic width" accommodation drives initial crestal bone loss with sintered porous-surfaced implants. Histometric data obtained for bone contact showed no significant differences between the long- and short-collar implant designs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".