MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characterization of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous 3D printed biomaterial

2019· article· en· W2955991236 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Tänzer, Philip J. Chuang, Chau Ngo, Song Li, Kevor S. TenHuisen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Bone & Joint Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomaterialFixation (population genetics)Materials scienceImplantBiomedical engineeringShear strength (soil)Porosity3d printedComposite materialMedicineSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biological fixation of a 3D printed porous implant, with and without different hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings, in a canine model. Materials and Methods A canine transcortical model was used to evaluate the characteristics of bone ingrowth of Ti6Al4V cylindrical implants fabricated using laser rapid manufacturing (LRM). At four and 12 weeks post-implantation, we performed histological analysis and mechanical push-out testing on three groups of implants: a HA-free control (LRM), LRM with precipitated HA (LRM-PA), and LRM with plasma-sprayed HA (LRM-PSHA). Results Substantial bone ingrowth was observed in all LRM implants, with and without HA, at both time periods. Bone ingrowth increased from 42% to 52% at four weeks, to 60% to 65% at 12 weeks. Mechanical tests indicated a minimum shear fixation strength of 20 MPa to 24 MPa at four weeks, and 34 MPa to 40 MPa at 12 weeks. There was no significant difference in the amount of bone ingrowth or in the shear strength between the three implant types at either time period. Conclusion At four and 12 weeks, the 3D printed porous implants exhibited consistent bone ingrowth and high mechanical shear strength. Based on the results of this study, we confirmed the suitability of this novel new additive manufacturing porous material for biological fixation by bone ingrowth. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):62–67.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Bone & Joint JournalSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207