Surface-etching enhances titanium implant osseointegration in newly formed (rhBMP-2-induced) and native bone.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The influence of surface modifications on osseointegration in newly formed bone is not well established. The purpose of this study was to compare osseointegration at acid-etched versus turned implants in newly formed and native bone. METHODS: Supra-alveolar peri-implant defects were created in 8 hound/Labrador mongrel dogs. Titanium implants 10 mm long (2 turned and 1 dual acid-etched) were placed 5 mm into the surgically reduced alveolar crest, creating 5-mm supra-alveolar peri-implant defects. Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2; 0.4 mg) in a collagen carrier was used to induce new bone formation. A macroporous, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene device was used to delineate new bone formation. The animals were euthanized at 8 weeks for histometric analysis of the experimental sites. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in rhBMP-2-induced bone density (mean +/- SD) at acid-etched versus turned implants (20.6% +/- 5.3% vs 23.8% +/- 4.7%; P = .232). However, there was a significant difference in bone-implant contact in favor of the acid-etched implants (12.3% +/- 6.8% vs 7.9% +/- 3.1%; P = .05). Native bone density averaged 63.9% +/- 7.5% and 64.5% +/- 9.0% for acid-etched and turned implants, respectively (P = .641). Nevertheless, bone-implant contact was significantly enhanced at acid-etched versus turned implants (59.7% +/- 11.3% vs 40.7% +/-21.2%; P =.005). CONCLUSIONS: Surface dual acid-etching of titanium implants has a positive effect on osseointegration in newly formed and native bone. Significant differences in bone density do not appear to influence this effect.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".