Histological Evaluation of Fresh Frozen Bone Integration at Different Experimental Times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this work was to investigate, through histological evaluation, the in vivo behavior of fresh frozen bone (FFB) used as particulate bone substitute in intraoral regenerative procedures. A total of 10 patients (group 1) received particulate FFB graft for bone regeneration in postextractive sockets, and 10 (group 2) underwent maxillary sinus augmentation by using the same bone substitute as filling. Fresh frozen bone was supplied from the Tissue Bank of the Veneto Region, Treviso Section.Healing was uneventful for all the patients and was monitored by periodical radiographs. Patients were scheduled for implant insertion according to the radiographic aspect. However, the mean healing time for group 1 was 45 days, whereas for group 2 patients, it was 100 days. At the moment of implant insertion, bone specimens were collected at the site of implant placement, from both groups and processed for histological analysis.Histological analysis after hematoxylin-eosin staining obtained from group 1 patients showed the presence of newly formed bone tissue, still well distinguishable from the grafted bone substitute. In samples from group 2 patients, a better integration could be recognized associated with active bone remodeling phenomena.These results showed a good integration of the considered FFB graft within the host tissue both at 45 and 100 days after grafting, displaying this biomaterial as suitable for preimplant regenerative procedures.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.008 | 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".