Bioactive glass air‐abrasion promotes healing around contaminated implant surfaces surrounded by circumferential bone defects: An experimental study in the rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to evaluate the healing of experimentally induced bone defects around contaminated dental implants after air-abrasion using 45S5 or zinc oxide (ZnO)-containing bioactive glasses (BAGs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One maxillary first molar was extracted from each Sprague-Dawley rat (n = 30). After 4-week healing, a titanium implant was placed in the extraction site with a circumferential bone defect. The rats were randomized into five different groups: (1) implants with Fusobacterium nucleatum and Porphyromonas gingivalis dual-species biofilm (IB); (2) implants with biofilm subjected to inert glass air-abrasion (inert); (3) sterile implants (S); (4) implants with biofilm subjected to 45S5 BAG air-abrasion (45S5); and (5) implants with biofilm subjected to ZnO-containing BAG air-abrasion (Zn4). After 8-week healing, maxillae were dissected, and histomorphometric analyses were performed. RESULTS: The first bone-to-implant contact was significantly shorter for the inert (1.58 ± 1.16 mm; p = 0.016), S (0.28 ± 0.13 mm; p < 0.001), 45S5 (0.41 ± 0.28 mm; p < 0.001), and Zn4 (0.26 ± 0.16 mm; p < 0.001) groups compared to IB group. Also, significantly more bone-to-implant contact was seen for S (72.35% ± 8.32%; p < 0.001), 45S5 (57.91% ± 24.10%; p = 0.002), and Zn4 (70.49% ± 12.74%; p < 0.001) groups than the IB group. The bone volume with the threads demonstrated significantly higher value for S (69.32% ± 9.15%; p < 0.001), 45S5 (58.93% ± 23.53%; p = 0.001), and Zn4 (68.65% ± 12.41%; p < 0.001) groups compared to the IB group. The bone volume within the defects was significantly higher for S (68.79% ± 11.77%; p < 0.001), 45S5 (62.51% ± 20.51%; p = 0.002), and Zn4 (73.81% ± 15.07%; p < 0.001) groups compared to the IB group. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that air-abrasion of contaminated moderately rough implant surfaces with either 45S5 or ZnO-containing BAGs enhances osseointegration and bone defect regeneration.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".