Comparison of three-dimensional digital analyses and two-dimensional histomorphometric analyses of the bone-implant interface.
Histological analysis is considered to be the gold standard method of evaluating osseointegration around a bone-implant. However, this method requires invasive specimen preparation and is capable of representing only one plane. By comparison, micro-computed tomography (μCT) is a fast and convenient...
Main Authors: | Jeong-Min Hong, Ung-Gyu Kim, In-Sung Luke Yeo |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2022-01-01
|
Series: | PLoS ONE |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276269 |
Similar Items
-
Comparison between bone–implant interfaces of microtopographically modified zirconia and titanium implants
by: Myint Kyaw Thu, et al.
Published: (2023-07-01) -
Three dimensional analyses of cracks and defects
by: Zhang, Tonglong
Published: (2009) -
KINEMATIC OF THE TAKEOFF PHASE OF THE LONG JUMP: A COMPARISON OF TWO DIMENSIONAL AND THREE DIMENSIONAL ANALYSES
by: Ahmet Alptekin, et al.
Published: (2013-01-01) -
A comparison of two and three-dimensional analyses of fatigue crack closure
by: Alizadeh, H, et al.
Published: (2007) -
Histological and Histomorphometric Analyses of Bone Regeneration in Osteoporotic Rats Using a Xenograft Material
by: Marwa Y. Shaheen, et al.
Published: (2021-01-01)