Bone-bioglass graft - an alternative to improve the osseointegration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homologues and xenogenous bones are currently the most used grafts in dentistry because of their performance. However, some inherent disadvantages of these materials have not yet been overcome, such as the lack of biological properties to improve the new bone formation in situ and the long remodeling time. The main aim of this work was to improve the performance of the commercial bone-based grafts and study its properties in vitro. For this purpose, rat bone was combined with bioglass, a synthetic biomaterial that displays high degradation kinetics and bioactivity properties, endowed with biological properties. The sol-gel method was used for 45S5 bioglass (45S5) synthesis, using TEOS and water soluble salts as starting materials. 45S5 was then associated with the rat bone, generating the new graft. FTIR results indicated the hydroxyapatite formation after the bioactivity tests. SEM and bioactivity results were used to assess the evolution of the graft. The bioactivity tests showed that after 30 days the mass gain of about 30 wt.% was due to the deposition of hydroxyapatite crystals at the surface of the grafts, suggesting the potential properties of this new graft for application in implantology.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".