MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development and evaluation of a noninvasive vibration modeling technique for primary stability measurement in artificial cortical bone blocks

2025· article· en· W4410265615 on OpenAlexafffund
Chester Jar, A Archibald, Monica Gibson, Lindsey Westover

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersInternational Team for ImplantologyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsITI FoundationSuncor Energy Incorporated
KeywordsVibrationStability (learning theory)Cortical boneBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceComputer scienceAcousticsEngineeringMedicineMachine learningAnatomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statement of problem Noninvasive methods of quantifying stability are important for monitoring implant health. Current techniques are unable to provide a universal measurement of stability. The Advanced System for Implant Stability Testing (ASIST) is a device that noninvasively measures implant stability by analyzing the vibration response of the implant system to estimate the interfacial stiffness, reported as the ASIST Stability Coefficient (ASC). Purpose The aim of this in vitro study was to determine whether implant stability can be measured as the interfacial stiffness with a refined analytical model that accounts for cortical and cancellous layers. Material and methods Bone-level tapered implants were placed in polyurethane foam comprised of 2 layers mimicking cortical and cancellous bone. Cancellous bone was simulated with 320 kg/m 3 foam, while cortical bone was simulated with 3 densities (480, 640, 800 kg/m 3 ) and 3 thicknesses (1, 2, 3 mm) for a total of 9 experimental groups. Each group contained 10 specimens. The stability of each implant was measured with the ASC, Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ), insertion torque (IT), and pullout test. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare stability values across groups of the same cortical density and thickness (α=.05). The Dunnett test was also used to compare experimental groups with a control group (n=10) of purely cancellous foam (320 kg/m 3 ). Correlations between outcome measurements were described with the Pearson correlation coefficient. Results ASC values followed similar trends with IT and pullout force (PF) measurements where varying the cortical density had the largest effect on stability values at the highest cortical thickness and vice versa. The control group showed values similar to those of the groups with a 1-mm cortical thickness. However, ISQ values significantly increased with cortical thickness ( P <.001) but did not change significantly with cortical density ( P =.265). Strong correlations were observed between the IT and pullout force ( r =0.946), ASC and IT ( r =0.872), and ASC and pullout force ( r =0.917). Weaker correlations were observed between the ISQ and IT ( r =0.495), and ISQ and pullout force ( r =0.552). Conclusions With the refined analytical model, ASC values were comparable with trends in IT and PF, with stronger correlations compared with the ISQ. Within the confines of this controlled in vitro study, the results suggest that the ASIST may provide an improved estimate of an implant's mechanical stability. However, further work with real bone, other implant systems, and human participants is warranted before its clinical feasibility can be assessed.

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Prosthetic DentistrySame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207