Bone formation around two titanium implant surfaces placed in bone defects with and without a bone substitute material: A histological, histomorphometric, and micro‐computed tomography evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the histological and microtomographic response of peri-implant bone tissue around titanium implants with different surface treatments, placed in bone defects filled or not filled with bone substitute materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty rabbits were divided into two groups according to the implant surface treatment. A bone defect was created in both tibias of all the rabbits, followed by the placement of one implant in each of these defects. On the left tibia, the defect was filled with a blood clot (BC), and on the right tibia, the defect was filled with biphasic hydroxyapatite/β-tricalcium-phosphate (HA/TCP); thus, there were four groups in total: BC-N: bone defect filled with a BC and porous surface titanium implant (control group); BC-A: bone defect filled with a BC and porous-hydrophilic surface titanium implant; HA/TCP-N: bone defect filled with a bone substitute material and porous surface titanium implant; HA/TCP-A: bone defect filled with a bone substitute material and porous-hydrophilic surface titanium implant. The animals were submitted for euthanasia at three distinct periods: 15, 30, and 60 days after implant installation. The samples were evaluated histologically and histometrically, to assess the quantity and quality of cells and the remaining bone substitute material in the grafted areas. The bone quantity was assessed by micro-computed tomography (CT). RESULTS: For both surface types, the presence of a bone substitute material led to higher values in all evaluated micro-CT parameters, except in the bone surface/volume ratio parameter. No significant statistical difference was found for new bone formation between the four groups (P < .05; CI 95%). At all periods, the HA/TCP-A group had a higher percentage of new bone formation. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that a porous hydrophilic surface in the presence of bone substitute material can accelerate peri-implant bone tissue formation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".