MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380422130 · doi:10.1111/cid.13234

Influence of obesity on osseointegration of implants with different surface treatments: A preclinical study

2023· article· en· W4380422130 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bruno Luís Graciliano Silva, Julio César Sánchez Puetate, Felipe Eduardo Pinotti, Camila Chiérici Marcantonio, Gabriel Gimenez Pedroso, Élcio Marcantônio, Rosemary Adriana Chiérici Marcantonio

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsOsseointegrationImplantAnalysis of varianceDentistryMedicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of obesity on the osseointegration of implants with hydrophobic and hydrophilic surfaces. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four male rats were distributed among four experimental groups: H-HB (Healthy/Hydrophobic): healthy animals with hydrophobic implants; H-HL (Healthy/Hydrophilic): healthy animals with hydrophilic implants; O-HB (Obese/Hydrophobic): animals with induced obesity and hydrophobic implants; O-HL (Obese/Hydrophilic): animals with induced obesity and hydrophilic implants. One hundred and twenty-eight implants were installed in the tibiae of the animals bilaterally (64 on the left tibiae and 64 on the right one) after 75 days of a specific diet (standard or high-fat diet) and euthanasia was performed in the experimental periods of 15 and 45 days after implant placement. Bone formation was assessed by biomechanical analysis (on the left tibiae of each animal), and microtomographic and histomorphometric analyses (on the right tibiae of each animal). Statistical analysis was performed using the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality and ANOVA followed by Tukey test to observe whether there was a significant difference between groups (p < 0.05); the t-test was used to compare the animals' body weight. RESULTS: The biomechanical analysis showed an increase in the removal torque value of animals after 45 days in comparison to after 15 days, with the exception of O-HB groups. The microtomographic analysis demonstrated no significant differences in the mineralized bone tissue volume between the groups. In the histomorphometric analysis, the H-HL/45 day group/period demonstrated higher bone-implant contact, in comparison to H-HL/15 days and the O-HL/45 day group/period showed an increase in bone area between the implant threads, in comparison to O-HL/15 days. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, obesity does not interfere with the osseointegration of hydrophobic and hydrophilic implants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→