Bioactive Glass-Ceramic Coating of Titanium Substrates by Alkaline Hydrothermal Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface modification is a well-known approach to enhance the osseointegration of titanium dental implants. In this study, a novel hydrothermal method for coating titanium surfaces with bioactive glass was developed. Our method included sol-gel synthesis of bioactive glass, followed by hydrothermal coating of titanium under different NaOH concentrations. The surface properties of coated substrates were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction, energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, and surface profilometry. By varying the alkalinity of the hydrothermal process, different surface topographies, crystalline phases and chemistries could be obtained. Soaking the hydrothermally coated titanium substrates in simulated body fluid resulted in hydroxyapatite deposition, demonstrating bioactivity. All titanium surfaces were biocompatible and the topography of the coated titanium surfaces played a major role in determining the attachment of MC3T3-E1 osteoblastic cells. Our studies suggest that this novel coating method has the potential to improve the osseointegration of dental 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 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".