Effect of cyclosporine‐A on orthodontic tooth movement in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To cite this article: Chen RY, Fu MM, Chih YK, Gau CH, Chiang CY, Nieh S, Hsieh YD, Fu E: Effect of cyclosporine‐A on orthodontic tooth movement in rats Orthod Craniofac Res 2011; 14 :234–242 Structured Abstract Authors – Chen RY, Fu MM, Chih YK, Gau CH, Chiang CY, Nieh S, Hsieh YD, Fu E Objective – The objective of this study is to examine the effect of cyclosporine‐A (CsA) on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement in rats. Setting and Sample Population – This is a randomized controlled trial with a split‐mouth design in Sprague–Dawley rats. Material and Methods – Eighteen rats, divided at random in two groups, were fed with 8 mg/kg CsA (experiment) or mineral oil (control) daily after initial healing of bilateral maxillary second molar removal. All rats received orthodontic coil springs (10 cN) secured to the maxillary incisors and first molars at the rights side, while no springs were placed at the left. Distances between first and third molars were measured on days 0, 3, 6, and 12. After sacrificing on day 12, the alveolar ridges of the maxillae were sectioned and blood samples were collected for serum tartrate‐resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP)‐5b level detection and for histology, respectively. Results – Significantly larger changes in intermolar distances were found after orthodontic force application in the CsA group at days 3 and 12 when compared with the control group. The inter‐radicular dental alveolus of CSA‐fed rats was osteopenic. Significantly increased TRAP‐5b serum level was noted in the CsA group when compared with the control group. Conclusions – We suggest that CsA enhanced the rate of orthodontic tooth movement. The osteopenia and the increased osteoclastic activity could be the underlying factors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".