Comparison of histomorphometry and <scp>microradiography</scp> of different implant designs to assess primary implant stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To contribute toward optimizing the long-term stability of dental implants. Our working hypothesis was that the degrees of immediate implant-bone contact, and hence of primary stability, would demonstrably differ between implant systems due to their different external geometries and thread designs (macro-design). This demonstration was provided in a bovine model (ex vivo) by employing and comparing histomorphometry and microradiography as evaluation methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 implants, representing six different implant thread designs, were inserted following the recommended surgical protocol in ribs of freshly slaughtered cattle. Twenty specimens of implants with surrounding bone were prepared per system and were divided into two equally sized groups of 60 specimens for analysis by either histomorphometry or micro-computed tomography. Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U test (P ≤ .05). RESULTS: One of the implant systems, featuring a slight tapered external geometry and a progressive thread design, consistently revealed the most favorable bone-implant contacts in both histomorphometric and microradiographic evaluations. Overall, consistently higher values of bone-implant contact were obtained with the microradiographic than the histomorphometric approach, and this difference reached statistical significance in three of the six implant systems tested. CONCLUSIONS: Progressive threads offering a bone-condensing effect can significantly help to maximize implant-bone contact percentages. Compared to histomorphometry, microradiography is likewise a suitable method to evaluate bone-implant contact, offering the additional benefits of being noninvasive and less time consuming.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".