MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Healing of Fresh Frozen Bone Allograft with or without Platelet‐Rich Plasma: A Histologic and Histometric Study in Rats

2011· article· en· W1563679818 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michel Reis Messora, Laís Braga, Gabriela Cristina de Oliveira, Luiz Fernando Ferreira de Oliveira, Roselaine Coelho Moreira Milagres, Leandro Toyoji Kawata, Flávia Aparecida Chaves Furlaneto, Natália Marcumini Pola, Natália de Campos, Maria José Hitomi Nagata

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsCalvariaPlatelet-rich plasmaResorptionBone resorptionHistologyBone healingMedicineDentistryPlateletPathologyChemistryAnatomyInternal medicineIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study histomorphometrically analyzed the effect of autogenous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on healing of fresh frozen bone allograft (FFBA) in bony defects in rat calvaria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 5mm-diameter defect was created in the calvarium of 30 rats. Animals were divided into three groups: C (defect was filled by blood clot only), FFBA (defect was filled with 0.01mL of FFBA), and FFBA/PRP (defect was filled with 0.01mL of FFBA combined with 100µL of PRP). All animals were euthanized at 30 days postoperatively. Histomorphometry and histology analyses were performed. Data were statistically analyzed (analysis of variance, Tukey, p<.05). RESULTS: FFBA had a statistically smaller new bone area than groups FFBA/PRP and C. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups FFBA and FFBA/PRP with regard to remaining bone graft particle area. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that (1) PRP improved the incorporation of FFBA, increasing the amount of new bone formed; (2) PRP has not influenced the resorption of nonviable particles of the FFBA; and (3) presence of remaining FFBA particles might have accounted for the smaller amount of new bone observed in group FFBA when compared with control group.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.256
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207