MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983673999 · doi:10.1177/0022034510375829

Regulation of Dental Enamel Shape and Hardness

2010· review· en· W1983673999 on OpenAlexaff
James P. Simmer, Pétros Papagerakis, C E Smith, Daniel C. Fisher, Adam N. Rountrey, Liwei Zheng, Jan C.‐C. Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Research · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Dental Protein Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsEnamel paintAmelogenesisAmeloblastAmorphous calcium phosphateCrystalliteChemistryDentinTooth enamelAmelogeninAppositionMaterials scienceAnatomyCrystallographyCalciumComposite materialBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epithelial-mesenchymal interactions guide tooth development through its early stages and establish the morphology of the dentin surface upon which enamel will be deposited. Starting with the onset of amelogenesis beneath the future cusp tips, the shape of the enamel layer covering the crown is determined by five growth parameters: the (1) appositional growth rate, (2) duration of appositional growth (at the cusp tip), (3) ameloblast extension rate, (4) duration of ameloblast extension, and (5) spreading rate of appositional termination. Appositional growth occurs at a mineralization front along the ameloblast distal membrane in which amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP) ribbons form and lengthen. The ACP ribbons convert into hydroxyapatite crystallites as the ribbons elongate. Appositional growth involves a secretory cycle that is reflected in a series of incremental lines. A potentially important function of enamel proteins is to ensure alignment of successive mineral increments on the tips of enamel ribbons deposited in the previous cycle, causing the crystallites to lengthen with each cycle. Enamel hardens in a maturation process that involves mineral deposition onto the sides of existing crystallites until they interlock with adjacent crystallites. Neutralization of acidity generated by hydroxyapatite formation is a key part of the mechanism. Here we review the growth parameters that determine the shape of the enamel crown as well as the mechanisms of enamel appositional growth and maturation.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations232
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental ResearchSame topicBone and Dental Protein StudiesFrench-language works237,207