Osseintegration following treatment of peri‐implantitis and replacement of implant components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the present experiment was to study if the quality of the titanium surface is a decisive factor for osseointegration and re-osseointegration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 2 Labrador dogs were used. The mandibular 1st molars and all premolars were removed bilaterally. 3 months later, 1 standard fixture and 3, 2-part "test fixtures" were installed in each side of the mandible. The text fixtures consisted of 1 6-mm long apical and 1 4-mm long coronal part connected with an internal screw. After 4 months, abutment connection was performed. 5 months later, a period of experimental peri-implantitis was initiated during which about 50% of the supporting bone tissue was lost. The dogs were later subjected to a treatment that included (i) systemic administration of antibiotics and (ii) surgical debridement of all implant sites. The abutments and the coronal parts of the text fixtures were removed. All parts of the exposed portion of the standard fixtures, the connecting screw and the apical part of the test fixtures were meticulously cleaned by mechanical means. A pristine, coronal fixture part was via the connecting screw attached to the apical fixture part of each text fixture. All fixtures were submerged. 2 weeks later, a fluorochrome was injected intravenously. After 4 months, biopsies of the implant sites were dissected and prepared for ground sectioning and analysis. RESULTS: It was demonstrated that re-osseointegration failed to occur to implant surfaces (standard) exposed to bacterial contamination, but did consistently occur at sites where a pristine implant component was placed in the bone defect following surgical debridement. CONCLUSION: The above findings seem to imply that the quality of the titanium surface is of decisive importance for both osseointegration and re-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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".