Ultrastructural study of tissues surrounding replanted teeth and dental implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the ultrastructure of the dentogingival border at replanted teeth and implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Wistar rats (8 weeks old) were divided into groups for replantation and implantation experiments. In the former, the upper right first molars were extracted and then immediately replanted. In the latter, pure titanium implants were used. All tissues were fixed, demineralized and embedded in epoxy resin for ultrastructural observations. RESULTS: One week after replantation, the junctional epithelium was lost, and the oral sulcular epithelium covered the enamel surface. The amount of the epithelium increased in 2 weeks, and resembled the junctional epithelium, and the internal basal lamina and hemidesmosomes were formed in 4 weeks. One week after implantation, peri-implant epithelium was formed, and in 2 and 4 weeks, this epithelium with aggregated connective tissue cells were observed. In 8 weeks, the peri-implant epithelium receded, and aligned special cells with surrounding elongated fibroblasts and bundles of collagen fibers appeared to seal the implant interface. CONCLUSION: In replantation of the tooth, the internal basal lamina remained at the surface of the enamel of the replanted tooth, which is likely to be related to regeneration of the junctional epithelium and the attachment apparatus at the epithelium-tooth interface. Following implantation, a layer of cells with characteristics of connective tissue cells, but no junctional epithelium and attachment apparatus, was formed to seal the site of the implant.
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 | 0.001 | 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".