Mechanical Properties of Plasma‐Sprayed Mullite‐Reinforced Titania–Bioglass Composite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bioceramics have been extensively used for various medical applications including hip and knee prostheses, tissue engineering scaffolds, and dental implants. Bioceramics, particularly bioglass, are desired because of their bioactivity but are often limited by their inherent brittleness. To compensate, composites have been formed to obtain unique properties where both bioactivity and mechanical integrity can be achieved. Mullite‐reinforced titania–bioglass (TiO 2 – BG ) composites were therefore deposited using plasma spraying technique. The microstructure of the coating materials were analyzed for their morphology and microstructure using scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive spectrometry. Mechanical properties of the coatings were tested using three‐point bend test, indentation test, and pin‐on‐disk wear test to determine their fracture strength, fracture toughness, and wear resistance, respectively. The addition of mullite fibers improved the fracture strength and wear resistance of TiO 2 – BG composites while having minimal effect on fracture toughness. After the addition of mullite, failure mode was bimodal, failing intergranularly and by fiber pull‐out. Although mullite fibers have not been particularly used for medical applications, fiber reinforcement has shown efficacy in mechanically reinforcing composites of various medical applications.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".