## 3 Results
### In Vivo Implant Characterization
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**\%** & **15 Days** & **30 D** & **60 Days** & **Values * & **15 Days** & **30 Days** & **60 Days** \\ \hline BIC & 54.34 \(\pm\) 0.32 & 60 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 32 \(\pm\) 1.21 * & 14 & 0.038 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\  & (54.34) & 33 \(\pm\) 0.3 & (68.32) * & 14 & 0.038 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline New Bone & 48.83 \(\pm\) 1.31 & 52.26 \(\pm\) 5 & 5.26 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 0.028 & 0.011 & 26.07 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 26.26 \(\pm\) 0.43 * & 27.10 \(\pm\) 0.32 ** \\  & (48.8) & (52.2) & (60.11) & 0.028 & 0.011 & 26.07 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 26.26 \(\pm\) 0.43 * & 27.10 \(\pm\) 0.32 ** \\ \hline Residual & 32.12 \(\pm\) 1.75 & 29.94 \(\pm\) 13 & 23.75 \(\pm\) 0.85 & 0.037 & 0.029 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\  & (29.94) & (22.75) & 0.037 & 0.029 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline Defect Closure & 38.63 \(\pm\) 0.32 & 66.24 \(\pm\) 4.06 & 01 \(\pm\) 94 ** & 0.015 & 0.014 & 10.87 \(\pm\) 0.23 & 25.56 \(\pm\) 0.43 * & 28.12 \(\pm\) 0.32 ** \\ \hline Resusp & 35.93 \(\pm\) 0.32 & 4 \(\pm\) 1.63 & 53.13 \(\pm\) 2.47 & 0.023 & 0.026 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\  & (25.93) & (40.13) & (40.13) & 0.026 & 0.002 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline Connective & 18.37 \(\pm\) 1.20 & 17.30 \(\pm\) 3.01 & 16.14 \(\pm\) 1.33 & 0.026 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ Tissue & (18.37) & (7.30) & (16.14) & 0.026 & 0.002 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: The histomorphometric ar. lysozyme. Figure 4: Histological analysis of the control group. In (**A**), samples at 15 days after pla. extent of the critical defects, the samples showed an intensive granulation reaction \(\pm\) in (**B**), samples \(\pm\) 0.43 *, where the bone defect began to be filled by the bone matrix from the poor. of the lesion; and \(\pm\) (**C**), 60 days after injury, the defect was closed but the new bone formed was of pc. quality, mainly in the center of the defect. particles (Figure 5D,E) were embedded partly in new bone tissue. In all the samples, bone integration was well advanced and bone penetration had been completed throughout central and deep areas. According to the EDS analysis and the high-mag -cation SEM - examination of the interfaces developed between all the scaffolds and the surrounded - - reaction zone was characterized by the intermediate presence of the calcium - white phase with traces of silica. The EDS analysis was carried out at a series of various point (Figure 5D) and by taking distinct points of interest from the middle to the periphery of the sam - less 0 note - by changes in the Si/Ca/P ratios. Table 2 offers the descriptive statistic - our databa - We saw that the resorption of active biomaterials was underway. The EDS analysis - one with the residual scaffold particles in the retrieved tissue gave a Ca/P ratio of - by - are periodic - by - The elemental analysis of the residual scaffold at different points revealed that - varies of particles had distinct mean Ca/P ratios, in accordance with - are degradation - in status. For the statistical data, a relatively high Ca/P ratio was obtained in the -idual scaffolds - 365 \(\leq\) Ca/P \(\leq\) 1.74--and at the bone interface--2.02 \(\leq\) Ca/P \(\leq\) 2.34--acc riding - the elemental analysis and when compared to new bone--1.81 \(\leq\) Ca/P \(\leq\) 1.98. The pre-implantation - excite Si ion concentration in the scaffold went from 1.13 \(\leq\) Si \(\leq\) 1.14 in the mate at to a post-implar - on ion concentration of 0.07 \(\leq\) Si \(\leq\) 1.11, with 0.02 \(\leq\) Si \(\leq\) 0.05 at the bone in the face versus that of new bone of 0.01 \(\leq\) Si \(\leq\) 0.02.