The effect of titanium surface treatment by application of constant potential or current on the viability of pre-osteoblast cells: an in-vitro study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of electrochemical treatment of a titanium surface employing constant current and potential on the viability of the tissue cells attached to the surface and determining the safety limits for this type of treatment. Methods Pre-osteoblast cells (pOB) were cultured and seeded onto titanium discs. The cell-seeded discs were then exposed to a range of contant direct electrical potentials (-6V–6V) or contant direct electrical currents (−12.5 mA, −25 mA, or −50 mA) using a three-electrode system connected to a potentiostat. Cell viability was assessed using live/dead assay and fluorescence microscopy. Results Exposure of cells to high negative potentials caused cell detachment, while exposure to positive ones led to cell death on the cpTi surfaces. However, cellular viability was preserved when the electrical potentials were kept between −3 and +3 V. Cells retained 80% viability when subjected to −12.5 mA currents with an initial pOB cell count of 5 × 10 4 . However, when the initial cell count was elevated to 1 × 10 5 , the cells demonstrated the ability to withstand an even greater current (−25 mA) while preserving their vitality at the same level. Conclusion Treatment of a titanium dental implant surface employing constant potential or current can harm cells surrounding dental implants. However, this damage can be minimized by keeping the potential within a safety limit.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".