Particle release from dental implants immediately after placement – An ex vivo comparison of different implant systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Metallic element release during implant placement can lead to mucositis and peri-implantitis. Here, using ex vivo porcine mandibles, the release of metallic elements into the surrounding bone with different material and geometrical designs was quantified. METHODS: Implants from BioHorizons® and Straumann® (Bone level, tapered/cylindrical, 3/4 mm body diameter, Ti-CP4/Ti-6Al-4V/Ti-15Zr) systems were used. Micro computed tomography and inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy was used to visualise and quantify metallic elements in bone, following acid digestion. Implant surfaces were examined with scanning electron microscopy and internalization of implant particles by human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) and RAW 264.7 macrophages were demonstrated in vitro. RESULTS: Implants with wider body diameters resulted in higher metallic element release. Ti-6Al-4V implants released significantly more metallic elements in comparison to both Ti-CP4 and Ti-15Zr devices with similar design and dimensions. Tapered Ti-CP4 implants released less compared to those with cylindrical design. Al three types of particles were internalized by HGFs and RAW 264.7. SIGNIFICANCE: Ti-CP4 and Ti-15Zr appear to be more suitable materials, however, further studies are required to elucidate the biological effects of the fine particles and/or metallic species from dental implants. Authors would like to raise the awareness in the dental profession community that careful evaluation of the materials used in dental implants and the potential risks of the individual constituents of any alloy are needed. The potential cytotoxicity of Ti-6Al-4V implant particles should be highlighted. Further investigations on the biological effect of the fine particles or metallic species released from dental implants are also needed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".