System for application of controlled forces on dental implants in rat maxillae: Influence of the number of load cycles on bone healing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental studies on the effect of micromotion on bone healing around implants are frequently conducted in long bones. In order to more closely reflect the anatomical and clinical environments around dental implants, and eventually be able to experimentally address load-management issues, we have developed a system that allows initial stabilization, protection from external forces, and controlled axial loading of implants. Screw-shaped implants were placed on the edentulous ridge in rat maxillae. Three loading regimens were applied to validate the system; case A no loading (unloaded implant) for 14 days, case B no loading in the first 7 days followed by 7 days of a single, daily loading session (60 cycles of an axial force of 1.5 N/cycle), and case C no loading in the first 7 days followed by 7 days of two such daily loading sessions. Finite element modeling of the peri-implant compressive and tensile strains plus histological and immunohistochemical analyses revealed that in case B any tissue damage resulting from the applied force (and related interfacial strains) did not per se disturb bone healing, however, in case C, the accumulation of damage resulting from the doubling of loading sessions severely disrupted the process. These proof-of-principle results validate the applicability of our system for controlled loading, and provide new evidence on the importance of the number of load cycles applied on healing of maxillary bone.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".