Early Bone Tissue Responses to Turned and Oxidized Implants in the Rabbit Tibia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown the formation of more bone contacts with a moderately rough and porous titanium surface, created by anodic oxidation, as compared with nonmodified turned titanium control surfaces. The mechanisms leading to a stronger bone response to oxidized titanium are not well understood. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to describe the early events of bone integration of titanium implants with oxidized and turned surfaces. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine adult New Zealand White rabbits and 18 implants were used in the study. One oxidized and one turned threaded titanium implants, which had been placed in the right tibial metaphysis, were analyzed in the present study. The implants were retrieved after 7, 14, and 28 days for light microscopic examination and histomorphometric measurements in ground sections. RESULTS: Integration of oxidized implants was seen to occur as direct bone formation on the surface, while the integration of turned implants was a result of bone ingrowth from preexisting bone and bone marrow. For oxidized implants, an almost acellular, darkly stained layer was seen after 7 to 14 days, which later became populated with osteoblasts. The presence of osteoid seams indicated appositional bone growth from the substrate toward the surrounding tissues. The bone contact values were higher for oxidized implants, and the bone area values were higher for turned implants. CONCLUSIONS: The present study confirms the idea that implant surface modification alters the bone tissue response to titanium. The early bone formation following surgery occurs directly on the moderately rough oxidized surface, while turned titanium surfaces are integrated by the ingrowth of bone from the adjacent bone marrow and preexisting bone tissues.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".