Histological Evaluation of Bone Formation Adjacent to Dental Implants with a Novel Apical Chamber Design: Preliminary Data in the Rabbit Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wound healing events after implant placement will vary according to the extent of the necrotic zone. PURPOSE: The goal of the present study was to evaluate bone healing around titanium implants with a novel apical chamber design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Titanium implants grade 4 were turned with different apex design. Control implants had a self tapping design with centric cutting grooves. Test implants exhibited eccentric cutting grooves interconnected by a hollow chamber. A total of 60 implants were installed in the femur/tibia of 10 rabbits for histological analysis. RESULTS: After 1 week, immature bone formation started at the cortical level of the test implants associated to scalloped contours indicative of bone resorption. Control implants failed to show new bone formation, and the space within the threads was filled mainly by red blood cells and surgical debris. Bone contact values showed no difference after 1 week, and significant higher values for test implants showed likewise after 4 weeks compared with control implants in the tibia. CONCLUSION: This experimental study verifies the beneficial effect of bone formation in the chamber at the apical part of the fixture coupled to a faster bone healing to implants placed in dense bone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".