Periodontal wound healing/regeneration following the application of rhGDF‐5 in a <i>β</i>‐TCP/PLGA carrier in critical‐size supra‐alveolar periodontal defects in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of a novel recombinant human GDF-5 (rhGDF-5) construct intended for onlay and inlay indications on periodontal wound healing/regeneration. METHODS: Contralateral, surgically created, critical-size, 6-mm, supra-alveolar periodontal defects in five adult Hound Labrador mongrel dogs received rhGDF-5 coated onto beta-tricalcium phosphate (beta-TCP) particles and immersed in a bioresorbable poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) composite or the beta-TCP/PLGA carrier alone (control). The rhGDF-5 and control constructs were moulded around the teeth and allowed to set. The gingival flaps were then advanced; flap margins were adapted 3-4 mm coronal to the teeth and sutured. The animals were euthanized at 8 weeks post-surgery when block biopsies were collected for histometric analysis. RESULTS: Healing was generally uneventful. A few sites exhibited minor exposures. Three control sites and one rhGDF-5 site (in separate animals) experienced more extensive wound dehiscencies. The rhGDF-5 and control constructs were easy to apply and exhibited adequate structural integrity to support the mucoperiosteal flaps in this challenging onlay model. Limited residual beta-TCP particles were observed at 8 weeks for both rhGDF-5/beta-TCP/PLGA and beta-TCP/PLGA control sites. The rhGDF-5/beta-TCP/PLGA sites showed significantly greater cementum (2.34 +/- 0.44 versus 1.13 +/- 0.25 mm, p=0.02) and bone (2.92 +/- 0.66 versus 1.21 +/- 0.30 mm, p=0.02) formation compared with the carrier control. Limited ankylosis was observed in four of five rhGDF-5/beta-TCP/PLGA sites but not in control sites. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the results suggest that rhGDF-5 is a promising candidate technology in support of periodontal wound healing/regeneration. Carrier and rhGDF-5 dose optimization are necessary before further advancement of the technology towards clinical evaluation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".