Tissue Characteristics at Microthreaded Implants: An Experimental Study in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to analyze bone tissue reactions at implants with and without a microthread configuration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In six beagle dogs, one test and two control implants were installed in one side of the mandible. While both implant types had a similar dimension and surface roughness, the test implants were designed with a microthread configuration in the marginal portion. Abutment connection was performed after 3 months. Another 3 months later, fixed partial dentures (FPDs) were cemented to the maxillary canine and premolars and FPDs were connected to the implants in the mandible. Ten months later, the animals were sacrificed and biopsies from each implant region were processed for histological analysis. Radiographs were obtained at implant placement after FPD connection and at the termination of the experiment. RESULTS: The radiographic examination revealed that the marginal bone level was well preserved at both test and control implants during the entire 16-month period. The degree of bone-implant contact within the marginal portion of the implants was significantly higher at the test (microthread) implants (81.8%) than at the control implants (72.8%). CONCLUSIONS: It was suggested that the microthread configuration offered improved conditions for osseointegration.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".