Reflection of an ultrasonic wave on the bone−implant interface: Effect of the roughness parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative ultrasound can be used to characterize the evolution of the bone-implant interface (BII), which is a complex system due to the implant surface roughness and to partial contact between bone and the implant. The aim of this study is to derive the main determinants of the ultrasonic response of the BII during osseointegration phenomena. The influence of (i) the surface roughness parameters and (ii) the thickness W of a soft tissue layer on the reflection coefficient r of the BII was investigated using a two-dimensional finite element model. When W increases from 0 to 150 μm, r increases from values in the range [0.45; 0.55] to values in the range [0.75; 0.88] according to the roughness parameters. An optimization method was developed to determine the sinusoidal roughness profile leading to the most similar ultrasonic response for all values of W compared to the original profile. The results show that the difference between the ultrasonic responses of the optimal sinusoidal profile and of the original profile was lower to typical experimental errors. This approach provides a better understanding of the ultrasonic response of the BII, which may be used in future numerical simulation realized at the scale of an implant.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".