{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05239179954441914, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00683371298405467, 'mean_word_length': 5.323741007194244, '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}}
Bone Response to Four Dental Implants with Different Surface Topographies: A Histologic and Histometric Study in Minipigs.

This study evaluated four implant surfaces in a minipig model: (1) Kohno Straight dual-engineered surface (DES) (Sweden & Martina); (2) SLActive (Straumann); (3) SM Biotite-H coated with Brushite (DIO); and (4) UF hybrid sandblasted and acid etched (HAS) (DIO). The surfaces presented different topographic features on the macro-, micro-, and nanoscales. After 12 weeks in vivo, significant differences were observed in bone-to-implant contact. UF HAS, presenting moderate microroughness and high nanoroughness, showed some advantage compared to nanorough SM Biotite-H and SLActive. A more pronounced difference was observed between UF HAS and Kohno Straight DES, characterized by a nanosmooth surface. Newly formed bone was observed around all surfaces.