Effect of Bio‐Oss<sup>®</sup> on osseointegration of dental implants surrounded by circumferential bone defects of different dimensions: an experimental study in the dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate the effect of gap width and graft placement on bone healing around implants placed in simulated extraction sockets of various widths in four Labrador dogs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five Osseotite implants per dog were placed in the mandible of four dogs. Two implants were inserted into sites with a 2.37 mm and two with a 1 mm gap present between the implants and bone around the coronal 6 mm of the implants in each dog. For one of each gap sizes, the gap was filled with Bio-Oss, and the other two with blood alone. A fifth implant was inserted without a gap and used as a control. Ground sections were prepared from biopsies taken at 4 months and histometric measurements of osseointegration and bone between the threads made for the coronal 6 mm. RESULTS: The medians for osseointegration ranged from 5.2 mm for control to 1-2.6 mm for the test modalities. There were significant differences for linear measurements of osseointegration (chi(2) 18.27; df 4; P=0.0011) and bone area within threads (chi(2) 23.4; df 4; P=0.0001) between test modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the wider the gap around the implants, the less favourable the histological outcome at short time intervals following treatment. They also infer that bone grafting with an organic bovine bone xenograft seems to lead to a more favourable histological outcome for wider circumferential defects but not for narrower defects.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".