Bone Substitutes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implant Dentistry -The Most Promising Discipline of Dentistry 92 provides biologic signals capable to induce local cells to enter a pathway of differentiation leading to mature osteoblasts. An osteoconductive biomaterial provides a three-dimensional interconnected scaffold where local bone tissue may regenerate new living bone. However, osteoconductive biomaterials are unable to form bone or to induce its formation. Another property that is interesting to find especially in bone substitutes is biodegradability. This is defined as the capacity of degradation of a particle by two mechanisms principally; through a passive chemical degradation or dissolution, and through active cellular activity mediated by osteoclast and/or macrophages. Moreover, the biological properties of bone substitute biomaterials are also influenced by their porosity, surface geometry and surface chemistry. The events leading to bone healing and regeneration are influenced by all the variables mentioned above. These properties are related to the biomaterial itself, however, host factors such as bone quality, vascularity of the graft bed and tobacco addiction may also influence the final outcome of a bone regeneration procedure with a bone substitute.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.105 | 0.065 |
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".