Biological evaluation of critical bone defect regeneration using hydroxyapatite/ alginate composite granules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: to evaluate biocompatibility and osteogenic potential of hydroxyapatite/alginate composite after its implantation on rat calvarian critical bone defect. METHODS: thirty adults male Wistar rats were randomly distributed into two groups: GHA - critical bone defect filled with hydroxyapatite/alginate composite granules (HA/Alg) and CG - critical bone defect without biomaterial; evaluated at biological points of 15, 45 and 120 days. RESULTS: the histomorphometrically analyses for GHA showed osteoid matrix deposition (OM) among the granules and towards the center of the defect in centripetal direction throughout the study, with evident new bone formation at 120 days, resulting in filling 4/5 of the initial bone defect. For CG, this finding was restricted to the edges of the bone margins and formation of connective tissue on the residual area was found in all biological points. Inflammatory response on GHA was chronic granulomatous type, discrete and regressive for all biological points. Throughout the study, the CG presented mononuclear inflammatory infiltrate diffuse and regressive. Histomorphometry analyses showed that OM percentage was evident for GHA group when compared to CG group in all analyzed periods (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: the biomaterial evaluated at this study showed to be biocompatible, bioactive, osteoconductive and biodegradable synchronously with bone formation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".