MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bone Response Inside Free‐Form Fabricated Macroporous Hydroxyapatite Scaffolds with and without an Open Microporosity

2007· article· en· W2160739543 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Johan Malmström, Erik Adolfsson, Anna Arvidsson, Peter Thomsen

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroporous materialScaffoldMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringTibiaFemurBone formationChemistryComposite materialAnatomySurgeryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The technique of free-form fabrication enables the production of controlled macroporous geometry inside ceramic scaffolds. Using scaffolds with identical macropore design makes it possible to study a relevant biological response linked to other specific changes of the material. PURPOSE: This study investigates the role of open micropores in hydroxyapatite (HA) scaffold during early bone healing to quantitatively ascertain whether microporosity in otherwise identical macroporous HA scaffolds can influence the bone response in rabbit tibia and femur at 6 weeks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HA scaffolds (Ø: 3.8 mm) with and without microporosity were randomly installed in both cortical and trabecular bone sites of New Zealand White rabbits. The animals were sacrificed 6 weeks after surgery. Ground sections obtained from en bloc tissues containing scaffold and recipient bone were subjected to histological evaluation and histomorphometric analysis. RESULTS: Microscopy showed elevated amounts of bone ingrowth and bone contact inside the microporous HA (mHA) group as compared with non-mHA. CONCLUSION: The current study indicates that the presence of open scaffold microporosity in HA, as determined by the fabrication process, enhances the ability of ceramic scaffolds to promote bone ingrowth and bone contact.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations47
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207