MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Introducing a Novel Analysis Technique for Osseointegrated Dental Implants Retrieved 29 Years Postsurgery

2011· article· en· W2155974040 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hamid Sarve, Bertil Friberg, Gunilla Borgefors, Carina B. Johansson

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsseointegrationVisualizationMaterials scienceDentistryBiomedical engineeringImplantMedicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To investigate osseointegration of oral implants, which were retrieved from a patient after 29 years in situ, we use novel three-dimensional analysis methods and visualization techniques that supplement conventional two-dimensional analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample processing involved nondecalcification and embedment in resin. Conventional two-dimensional histomorphometrical methods were conducted. Additionally, the quantification was extended to three-dimensional by using synchrotron radiation micro-computed tomography (SRµCT) technique and two relevant visualization methods for the three-dimensional data were introduced. RESULTS: The three-dimensional results involved three-dimensional quantification and visualization of two implant samples with methods beyond state-of-the-art. Traditional two-dimensional histomorphometrical results revealed a mean bone-implant contact (BIC) of about 50%. In most samples, bone area (BA) was lower inside the treads compared with out-folded mirror images, which were confirmed by the three-dimensional quantification. The BIC along four selected regions showed highest percentages in the bottom/valley region and lowest in the thread-peak region. Qualitative observations revealed ongoing bone remodeling areas in all samples. The apical hole demonstrated high osseointegration. CONCLUSION: The novel techniques including an animation and an out-folding of BIC and BA enabled a simultaneous visualization of the three-dimensional material obtained from SRµCT data. However, the two-dimensional histological sections were needed for qualitative and quantitative evaluation of osseointegration and, thus, both methods are considered equally important.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→