Histomorphometric Evaluation of a Nanothickness Bioceramic Deposition on Endosseous Implants: A Study in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the bone response to a nanothickness bioceramic ion beam-assisted deposition (IBAD) on endosteal implants in a canine model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Alumina-blasted/acid-etched (control) and IBAD-modified (test) implants were characterized by scanning electron microscopy, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy + ion beam milling, thin-film mode X-ray diffraction, and atomic force microscope. The implants were surgically placed in four dogs' proximal tibiae and remained for 2 and 4 weeks in vivo. Oxytetracycline (10 mg/kg) was administered for bone labeling 48 hours prior to euthanization. Following euthanization, nondecalcified thin sections were prepared for UV and transmitted light microscopy. The amount of bone labeling was evaluated along the length and away from the implant surface by means of a computer software. The % bone-to-implant contact (BIC) was determined for each specimen. One-way analysis of variance at 95% level of significance along with Tukey's post hoc multiple comparisons were utilized for statistical evaluation. The characterization showed Ca- and P-based amorphous coatings with a 20- to 50-nm thickness. RESULTS: In vivo results showed a significant increase in general and site-specific (to 0.5 mm from the implant surface) bone activity for the 4-week test implants compared with the control implants. Bone activity levels decreased as a function of distance from the implant surface for all groups. No significant differences in BIC were observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that both surfaces were biocompatible and osteoconductive and that a time-dependent increase in osteoactivity occurred around the test implants.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".