Effect of Hydroxyapatite and Titania Nanostructures on Early In Vivo Bone Response
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
PURPOSE: Hydroxyapatite (HA) or titania nanostructures were applied on smooth titanium implant cylinders. The aim was to investigate whether nano-HA may result in enhanced osseointegration compared to nano-titania structures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surface topography evaluation included detailed characterization of nano-size structures present at the implant surface combined with surface roughness parameters at the micro- and nanometer level of resolution. Microstructures were removed from the surface to ensure that bone response observed was dependent only on the nanotopography and/or chemistry of the surface. Early in vivo histological analyses of the bone response (4 weeks) were investigated in a rabbit model. RESULTS: In the present study, nano-titania-coated implants showed an increased coverage area and feature density, forming a homogenous layer compared to nano-HA implants. Bone contact values of the nano-titania implants showed a tendency to have a higher percentage as compared to the nano-HA implants (p = .1). CONCLUSION: Thus, no evidence of enhanced bone formation to nano-HA-modified implants was observed compared to nano-titania-modified implants. The presence of specific nanostructures dependent on the surface modification exhibiting different size and distribution did modulate in vivo bone response.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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