Treatment of Peri‐Implant Defects in the Rabbit's <scp>Tibia</scp> with Adipose or Bone Marrow‐Derived Mesenchymal Stems Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) treatment in conjunction with bone graft materials or space filler can be an alternative to autogenous bone grafts in the treatment of peri-implant bone defects. PURPOSE: To evaluate the success of bone regeneration capacity of adipose-derived and bone marrow-derived MSCs for the treatment of peri-implant bone defects when applied with a beta-tricalcium phosphate/collagen-based scaffold. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty implants were placed into the tibiae of 10 rabbits bilaterally. Surgical defects created around the implants were treated with one the following treatment modalities: 1) adipose-derived MSC transplanted scaffold + collagen membrane; 2) bone marrow-derived MSC transplanted scaffold + collagen membrane; 3) autogenous bone + collagen membrane; and 4) collagen membrane only. The bone regeneration capacity of each technique was determined by histomorphometry, micro-CT, and measuring the implant stability by resonance frequency analysis. RESULTS: One limb of one rabbit was excluded because of fracture, and another limb was excluded because of infection. All parameters on 36 implants revealed that both sources of MSC can form equivalently new bone that is comparable with autogenous bone. The defects treated with membrane only had significantly less bone formation compared with other groups. CONCLUSION: Both adipose-derived and bone marrow-derived MSC treatments are feasible alternatives to autogenous bone grafts in the treatment of peri-implant osseos defects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".