Early bone formation adjacent to rough and turned endosseous implant surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate a proposed model (Berglundh et al. 2003) and to evaluate the rate and degree of osseointegration at turned (T) and sand blasted and acid etched (SLA) implant surfaces during early phases of healing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The devices used for the study of early healing had a geometry that corresponded to that of a solid screw implant with either a SLA or a T surface configuration. A circumferential trough had been prepared within the thread region (intra-osseous portion) that established a geometrically well-defined wound chamber. Twenty Labrador dogs received totally 160 experimental devices to allow the evaluation of healing between 2 h and 12 weeks. Both ground and decalcified sections were prepared from mesial/distal and buccal/lingual device sites. Histometric and morphometric analyses of the ground sections and morphometric analysis of the tissue components in decalcified sections were performed. RESULTS: The ground sections provided an overview of the various phases of tissue formation, while the decalcified, thin sections enabled a more detailed study of events involved in bone tissue modeling and remodeling for both SLA and T surfaces. The initially empty wound chamber became occupied with a coagulum and a granulation tissue that was replaced by a provisional matrix. The process of bone formation started already during the first week. The newly formed bone present at the lateral border of the cut bony bed appeared to be continuous with the parent bone, but on the SLA surface woven bone was also found at a distance from the parent bone. Parallel-fibered and/or lamellar bone as well as bone marrow replaced this primary bone after 4 weeks. In the SLA chambers, more bone-to-device contact, more initial woven bone and earlier lamellar bone formation was found than in the T chambers. CONCLUSION: Osseointegration represents a dynamic process both during its establishment and its maintenance. While healing showed similar characteristics with resorptive and appositional events for both SLA and T surfaces, the rate and degree of osseointegration were superior for the SLA compared with the T chambers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".