Biomechanical and Bone Histomorphological Evaluation of Two Surfaces on Tapered and Cylindrical Root Form Implants: An Experimental Study in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the early bone response of tapered and cylindrical root form implants with two different surface treatments in fresh extraction sockets after 4 and 8 weeks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surface treatments and implant design comprised (n = 9 each): tapered with dual acid-etched surface; tapered with dual acid-etched and sandblasted surface (T DAE SB); cylindrical with dual acid-etched surface (C DAE); and cylindrical with dual acid-etched and sandblasted surface (C DAE SB). Implants were placed in the distal sockets of mandibular premolars (2 P2, 3 P3, 4 P4 ) of six beagle dogs, remaining in vivo for 4 and 8 weeks. After sacrifice, the implants were subjected to torque to the point of interface fracture and subsequently nondecalcified for histomorphological study. Statistical analysis was performed by a General Linear Model (GLM) analysis of variance model with a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: Torque to interface fracture was significantly greater for the C DAE SB group than for the other groups (p < .001). Histomorphological analysis showed woven bone formation around all implant surfaces at 4 weeks and its replacement by lamellar bone at 8 weeks. Study time (4 or 8 weeks) did not affect torque measures. CONCLUSIONS: The double acid-etched and sandblasted sample surface increased early bone biomechanical fixation of both cylindrical and tapered root form implants. The cylindrical root form implants showed higher torque to interface fracture values when compared with the tapered root form implants. The C DAE SB surface group showed the highest biomechanical fixation values (p < .001).
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".