Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An evaluation of variables influencing implant fixation by direct bone apposition

Thomas, Kevin A., Cook, Stephen D.·1985·Journal of Biomedical Materials Research

Abstract

A systematic mechanical and histologic evaluation of design variables affecting bone apposition to various biocompatible materials was undertaken. The variables investigated included material elastic modulus, material surface texture, as well as material surface composition. The implant materials included polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), low‐temperature isotropic (LTI) pyrolytic carbon, commercially pure (C.P.) titanium, and aluminum oxide (Al 2 O 3). Implant surface texture was varied by either polishing or grit‐blasting the various materials. Implant surface composition was varied by applying a coating of ultra‐low temperature isotropic (ULTI) pyrolytic carbon to the various implants. A total of 12 types of implants were evaluated in vivo by placement transcortically in the femora of adult mongrel dogs for a period of 32 weeks. Following sacrifice, mechanical push‐out testing was performed to determine interface shear strength and interface shear stiffness. The results obtained from mechanical testing indicate that for implants fixed by direct bone apposition, interface stiffness and interface shear strength are not significantly affected by either implant elastic modulus or implant surface composition. Varying surface texture, however, significantly affected the interface response to the implants. For each elastic modulus group the roughened surfaced implants exhibited greater strengths than the corresponding smooth surfaced implants. Undecalcified histologic evaluation of the implants demonstrated that the roughened implants exhibited direct bone apposition, whereas the smooth implants exhibited various degrees of fibrous tissue encasement. Thus, for implants utilizing direct bone apposition fixation, it appears that of the parameters investigated, implant surface texture is the most significant.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jbm.820190802

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
Thomas, K. A., & Cook, S. D.
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1985-10
Volume
19
Issue
8
Pages
875-901
ISSN
  • 0021-9304 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-4636
OpenAlex
W2077544594
Cited by
313
References
5
FWCI
5.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An evaluation of variables influencing implant fixation by direct bone apposition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jbm.820190802
The paper
Thomas, K. A., & Cook, S. D. (1985). An evaluation of variables influencing implant fixation by direct bone apposition. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820190802

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.