Calcium sulfate‐containing glass polyalkenoate cement for revision total knee arthroplasty fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) bone cement is used as a minor void filler in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The application of PMMA is indicated only for peripheral bone defects with less than 5 mm depth and that cover less than 50% of the bone surface. Treating bone defects with PMMA results in complications as a result of volumetric shrinkage, bone necrosis, and aseptic loosening. These concerns have driven the development of alternative bone cements. We report here on novel modified glass polyalkenoate cements (mGPCs) containing 1, 5 and 15 wt% calcium sulfate (CaSO4) and how the modified cements' properties compare to those of PMMA used in rTKA. CaSO4 is incorporated into the mGPC to improve both osteoconductivity and bioresorbability. The results confirm that the incorporation of CaSO4 into mGPCs decreases the setting time and increases release of therapeutic ions such as Ca2+ and Zn2+ over 30 days of maturation in deionized (DI) water. Moreover, the compressive strength for 5 and 15 wt% CaSO4 addition increased to over 30 MPa after 30 day maturation. Although the overall initial compressive strength of the mGPC (~ 30 MPa) is less than PMMA (~ 95 MPa), the compressive strength of mGPC is closer to that of cancellous bone (~ 1.2–7.8 MPa). CaSO4 addition did not affect biaxial flexural strength. Fourier transform infrared analysis indicated no cross‐linking between CaSO4 and the GPC after 30 days. in vivo tests are required to determine the effects the modified GPCs as alternative on PMMA in rTKA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".