Propranolol enhances bone healing and implant osseointegration in rats tibiae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Propranolol, a non-selective β-blocker widely used to treat cardiovascular conditions, favours bone accrual. Accordingly, we hypothesized that propranolol could be useful for improving bone healing and osseointegration. This in vivo study was designed to investigate the effect of propranolol on bone healing and osseointegration in rats' tibiae. METHODS: On 24 Sprague-Dawley rats, a unicortical defect was created in the right tibial metaphysis of each rat and a custom-made titanium implant was placed in the left tibia. Animals were then assigned into two groups (n = 12, each group) and treated daily with either propranolol (5 mg/kg: subcutaneous) or saline, for 2 weeks. Then, after killing, the volume of the cortical defects (mm3) and the percentages of newly formed bone in the defects, were assessed with microcomputed tomography; bone-implant contact percentage and peri-implant bone volume/tissue volume were assessed by histomorphometry. RESULT: , p < 0.001) with more bone volume/tissue volume (60.6 ± 7.9% versus 41.1 ± 10.2%, p < 0.001) compared to saline-treated rats. Propranolol also enhanced osseointegration as propranolol-treated rats presented higher bone-implant-contact (65.0 ± 13.1% versus 42.5 ± 8.8%, p < 0.001) and peri-implant bone volume/Tissue volume (73.8 ± 10.1% versus 56.9 ± 5.7%, p = 0.007) than saline-treated rats. CONCLUSION: Propranolol enhanced bone healing and implant 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".