{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022994379151762903, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01430761369443025, 'mean_word_length': 5.080745341614906, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A study of the bone healing kinetics of plateau versus screw root design titanium dental implants.

OBJECTIVE
This study was designed to compare the bone healing process around plateau root from (PRF) and screw root from (SRF) titanium dental implants over the immediate 12 week healing period post implant placement.


MATERIAL AND METHODS
32PRF and 32SRF implants were placed in 8 beagle dogs at 12, 8, 5 and 3 weeks prior to enthanisation using a bilaterally balanced distribution. Undecalcified ground sections were prepared from the biopsies taken and histometric measurements of bone implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO) were made on the middle 5 mm portion of each 8 mm implant root length.


RESULTS
The analysis showed that although measurements of bone to implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO) tended to be greater for the SRF implants at all four time points, the differences in measurements between implant types did not reach statistical significance (P=0.07, P=0.06). The effect of time on BIC and BAFO was found to be strongly significant for both implant types thus indicating a statistically significant increase in BIC and BAFO overall with time (P=0.004, P=0.002). Furthermore, both PRF and SRF implants behaved similarly over time with measurements of BIC and BAFO progressing in parallel. Histomorphologic analysis of these sections demonstrated the prominent role of woven bone (callus) in the bone healing process around PRF implants.


CONCLUSION
The results can be interpreted to indicate a comparable development of secondary stability for both PRF and SRF implant designs. However, as these parameters reflect the structural connection between implant and bone and not the functional properties of the bone to implant interface, they cannot be regarded as comprehensive measures of osseointegration. This particularly relevant given the reduced load bearing capacity of woven bone.