Histologic Evaluation of Brånemark Clinic Oral Implants Retrieved from Grafted Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this report is to quantitatively and qualitatively describe the bone tissue response to Brånemark implants retrieved from grafted sites in patients. MATERIALS AND METHOD: The material consists of consecutively received Brånemark implants retrieved from grafted sites. Thirty-five of these implants, retrieved from 16 patients, were suitable for the histologic evaluation of undecalcified sections in the light microscope. RESULTS: The unloaded implants were mainly lined with soft tissue, and sparse bone-implant contact was observed only in some sections. The loaded implants, with the exception of one implant removed due to mobility, had mature and new bone-implant contact. Resorption of graft through cutting cone structures was detected. Cement lines were found separating bone-like tissue albeit no cellular content and bone tissue with detectable osteocytes. CONCLUSION: In this heterogeneous group of implants from grafted sites, the unloaded implants showed limited bone-implant contact. The autografts showed seemingly mixed viability as judged by the cell content in the osteocyte lacunae and cement lines separating areas with filled and empty lacunae.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".