Mechanical Characterisation of Carbonised Plant Scaffolds as Potential Bone Graft Substitutes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents an assessment of the mechanical properties of biochars in the context of their potential application as bone graft substitutes. The samples were obtained from selected hardwood species and subjected to pyrolysis at temperatures of 400 °C, 600 °C, 800 °C and 1000 °C. To assess the mechanical properties, a classical three-point bending test was employed alongside Digital Image Correlation (DIC), which enabled analysis of displacement and strain distribution. The results indicate that biochars derived from hornbeam pyrolysed (carbonised) at 800 °C achieve Young’s modulus values of up to 5.69 ± 0.76 GPa and those, carbonised at 1000 °C, reached flexural (bend) strength values of up to 0.01897 ± 0.00211 GPa. These parameters fall within the range of cancellous bone properties and the lower range of cortical bone properties of the mandible, suggesting their potential suitability for reconstructing load-bearing bone structures with limited mechanical demand, including the mandible. The results highlight the effect of pyrolysis temperature on the microstructure and mechanical properties of the material and indicate the need for further studies on biocompatibility and surface functionalisation. Plant-derived biochars, owing to their natural porosity and properties comparable to bone tissue, may represent a promising alternative to currently used biomaterials in bone tissue engineering.
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 | 0.001 | 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".