A post-classical theory of enamel biomineralization… and why we need one
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enamel crystals are unique in shape, orientation and organization. They are hundreds of thousands times longer than they are wide, run parallel to each other, are oriented with respect to the ameloblast membrane at the mineralization front and are organized into rod or interrod enamel. The classical theory of amelogenesis postulates that extracellular matrix proteins shape crystallites by specifically inhibiting ion deposition on the crystal sides, orient them by binding multiple crystallites and establish higher levels of crystal organization. Elements of the classical theory are supported in principle by in vitro studies; however, the classical theory does not explain how enamel forms in vivo. In this review, we describe how amelogenesis is highly integrated with ameloblast cell activities and how the shape, orientation and organization of enamel mineral ribbons are established by a mineralization front apparatus along the secretory surface of the ameloblast cell membrane. Genetic research into tooth-enamel formation reveals a mineralization front along which crystals form, US and Canadian scientists report. James P. Simmer and colleagues at the University of Michigan, USA, and McGill University, Canada, reviewed recent genetic studies which suggest that enamel formation, or amelogenesis, is closely linked to the activity of ameloblasts, the cells that initiate tooth growth. Based on laboratory studies, the classical theory of amelogenesis describes crystal growth on an extracellular matrix with mineral deposition governed by proteins. However, enamel appears to behave differently within the body. Studies on rodents suggest that the first mineral present in enamel is amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP), and that the initial enamel ribbons are not crystalline but flexible. A mineralization front, sustained by the ameloblast cell membrane, shapes and orientates the ribbons before they harden into rod-shaped crystals.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".