MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116939564 · doi:10.2174/1874325001206010376

Acid Etching and Plasma Sterilization Fail to Improve Osseointegration of Grit Blasted Titanium Implants

2012· article· en· W2116939564 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mikkel Saksø, Stig Storgaard Jakobsen, Henrik Saksø, Jørgen Baas, Thomas Jakobsen, Kjeld Søballé

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Orthopaedics Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsseointegrationImplantMedicineDentistryTitaniumFixation (population genetics)Sterilization (economics)Biomedical engineeringMaterials scienceSurgeryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interaction between implant surface and surrounding bone influences implant fixation. We attempted to improve the bone-implant interaction by 1) adding surface micro scale topography by acid etching, and 2) removing surface-adherent pro-inflammatory agents by plasma cleaning. Implant fixation was evaluated by implant osseointegration and biomechanical fixation.The study consisted of two paired animal sub-studies where 10 skeletally mature Labrador dogs were used. Grit blasted titanium alloy implants were inserted press fit in each proximal tibia. In the first study grit blasted implants were compared with acid etched grit blasted implants. In the second study grit blasted implants were compared with acid etched grit blasted implants that were further treated with plasma sterilization. Implant performance was evaluated by histomorphometrical investigation (tissue-to-implant contact, peri-implant tissue density) and mechanical push-out testing after four weeks observation time.Neither acid etching nor plasma sterilization of the grit blasted implants enhanced osseointegration or mechanical fixation in this press-fit canine implant model in a statistically significant manner.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open Orthopaedics JournalSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207