Nanocrystalline Hydroxyapatite Bone Substitute Leads to Sufficient Bone Tissue Formation Already after 3 Months: Histological and Histomorphometrical Analysis 3 and 6 Months following Human Sinus Cavity Augmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this study the de novo bone formation capacity of a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite bone substitute was assessed 3 and 6 months after its insertion into the human sinus cavity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sinus cavity augmentation was performed in a total of 14 patients (n = 7 implantation after 3 months; n = 7 implantation after 6 months) with severely atrophic maxillary bone. The specimens obtained after 3 and 6 months were analyzed histologically and histomorphometrically with special focus on bone metabolism within the residual bone and the augmented region. RESULTS: This study revealed that bone tissue formation started from the bone-biomaterial-interface and was directed into the most cranial parts of the augmented region. There was no statistically significant difference in new bone formation after 3 and 6 months (24.89 ± 10.22% vs 31.29 ± 2.29%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the present study and according to previously published data, implant insertion in regions augmented with this bone substitute material could be considered already after 3 months. Further clinical studies with bone substitute materials are necessary to validate these findings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".