MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bioactivity of novel carboxymethyl chitosan scaffold incorporating MTA in a tooth model

2010· article· en· W1779029612 on OpenAlexaff
Rusdianto Budiraharjo, K. G. Neoh, E. T. Kang, Anil Kishen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Endodontic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScaffoldChitosanMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringBiophysicsDentistryChemistryMedicineBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To characterise the bioactivity of a novel carboxymethyl chitosan (CMCS) scaffold with and without incorporating mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) in a tooth model. METHODOLOGY: Cross-linked CMCS scaffold (CaC) and MTA-coated CaC (CaMT) scaffold were prepared by freeze-drying. The bioactivity of the scaffolds was tested in vitro in four different mineralisation solutions (bulk system) and ex vivo in simulated body fluid (SBF) in the tooth model. After mineralisation, the mineral deposits on the scaffolds were analysed using scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive X-ray, and inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. All data were statistically analysed using the two-sample t-test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Hydroxyapatite (HAP) deposition was observed on CaC and CaMT scaffolds after 1 week of mineralisation in the tooth model and in the bulk system. The deposition was significantly higher (P < 0.05) on CaMT scaffold than that on CaC scaffold. The amount of HAP formed in the tooth model was significantly lower (P < 0.05) than that in the bulk solution. CONCLUSIONS: The CMCS scaffolds are bioactive and capable of biomineralisation by forming HAP within a tooth model ex vivo. The bioactivity of the CMCS scaffold can be enhanced by incorporating MTA.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations31
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Endodontic JournalSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207