{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03271028037383177, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004672897196261682, 'mean_word_length': 5.219917012448133, '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}}
Differences in ceramic-bone interface between surface-active ceramics and resorbable ceramics: a study by scanning and transmission electron microscopy.

The interface between bioactive ceramics and bone was studied by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The materials were apatite-wollastonite-containing glass ceramic (A-W.GC) as a representative surface-active ceramic, and calcite and beta-tricalcium phosphate (beta-TCP) as resorbable ceramics. Particles of these materials, ranging between about 100 microns and 300 microns in diameter, were implanted into rat tibiae, and specimens were prepared for observation at 8 weeks after implantation. Both SEM and TEM demonstrated that A-W.GC was bonded to bone through a thin Ca-P-rich layer consisting of fine apatite crystals apparently different from those of bone in shape, size, and orientation. Collagen fibers of the bone reached the surface of this layer, and chemical bonding between A-W.GC and the bone was speculated. Calcite and beta-TCP, on the other hand, made direct contact with the bone, and no apatite layer was present at the interface. The surfaces of the implants became rough due to degradation, and bone grew into the finest surface irregularities. However, we were unable to demonstrate any continuity of crystals between the resorbable implants and bone by high-resolution TEM. Accordingly, the bonding strength was considered to be mainly attributable to mechanical interlocking.