Effect of implant design and bioactive glass coating on biomechanical properties of fiber‐reinforced composite implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the influence of implant design and bioactive glass (BAG) coating on the response of bone to fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) implants. Three different FRC implant types were manufactured for the study: non-threaded implants with a BAG coating; threaded implants with a BAG coating; and threaded implants with a grit-blasted surface. Thirty-six implants (six implants for each group per time point) were installed in the tibiae of six pigs. After an implantation period of 4 and 12 wk, the implants were retrieved and prepared for micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), push-out testing, and scanning electron microscopy analysis. Micro-CT demonstrated that the screw-threads and implant structure remained undamaged during the installation. The threaded FRC/BAG implants had the highest bone volume after 12 wk of implantation. The push-out strengths of the threaded FRC/BAG implants after 4 and 12 wk (463°N and 676°N, respectively) were significantly higher than those of the threaded FRC implants (416°N and 549°N, respectively) and the nonthreaded FRC/BAG implants (219°N and 430°N, respectively). Statistically significant correlation was found between bone volume and push-out strength values. This study showed that osseointegrated FRC implants can withstand the static loading up to failure without fracture, and that the addition of BAG significantly improves the push-out strength of FRC implants.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".