Vertical Bone Augmentation with Simultaneous Dental Implantation Using Crestal Biomaterial Rings: A Rabbit Animal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ceramic biomaterial blocks like hydroxyl apatite are too brittle for simple simultaneous vertical augmentation and dental implant placement. Biological scaffolds of xenogenic or allogenic origin are known to be advantageous. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was the proof of principle for combined vertical bone augmentation and dental implantation with marginal cuffs made of biological scaffolds with interconnecting porous system and titanium dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cylindrical porcine biomaterial rings (processed, mineralized bone matrix) were placed in combination with titanium dental implants in the tibia model using six chinchilla bastard rabbits (n = 12 samples). Histological examination included undecalcified histological examination with toluidine blue staining and fluorescence microscopy. Animals were sacrificed after 30 days. RESULTS: The results showed bony healing in the scaffolds with immature bone tissue ingrowth following the trabecular structure, showing lamellar cancellous bone healing. Fluorescence microscope showed analogous results. CONCLUSION: The biological scaffold proved a biocompatibility in a xenogenic setting. The vertical bone augmentation with simultaneous implantation was successful and proved the feasibility of the concept.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".