Comparison of Osseointegration of Five Different Surfaced Titanium Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topography, chemical features, surface charge, and hydrophilic nature of titanium implant surfaces are crucial factors for successful osseointegration. This study aimed to investigate the bone implant contact (BIC) ratio of titanium dental implants with different surface modification techniques using the rat femoral bone model. Sandblasted and acid washed (SL-AW), sandblasted (SL), resorbable blast material (RBM), microarc (MA), and sandblasted and microarc (SL-MA) surfaces were compared in this study. Forty male Sprague-Dawley rats were used in this study. The rats were divided into 5 equal groups (n = 8), and totally 40 implants were integrated into the right femoral bones of the rats. The rats were sacrificed 12 weeks after the surgical integration of the implants. The implant surface-bone tissue interaction was directly observed by a light microscope, and BIC ratios were measured after the nondecalcified histological procedures. Bone implant contact ratios were determined as follows: SL-AW: 59.26 ± 14.36%, SL: 66.01 ± 9.63%, RBM: 63.53 ± 11.23%, MA: 65.51 ± 10.3%, and SL-MA: 68.62 ± 6.6%. No statistically significant differences were found among the 5 different surfaced titanium implant groups (P > 0.05). Our results show that various implant surface modification techniques can provide favorable bone responses to the BIC of dental implants.
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) | 0.001 | 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".