Overview of the Radiology, Histology, and Bone Morphogenetic Protein Expression during Distraction Osteogenesis of the Mandible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Distraction osteogenesis (DO) is a form of in vivo tissue engineering during which an osteotomy and controlled distraction are used to lengthen bone. The molecular signals that govern distraction-induced bone formation have not been fully elucidated. Specifically, the role of bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) in DO of the mandible remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the radiologic and histologic evolution of newly formed bone during DO of the mandible and to relate these changes to the expression of BMPs. METHODS: Fourteen skeletally mature male rabbits were used. A distractor device was surgically applied to one side of the mandible following osteotomy. After 1 week (latency period), distraction was started at a rate of 0.25 mm every 12 hours for 3 weeks (distraction period) and was followed by a 3-week consolidation period. Two animals were sacrificed each week after surgery (weeks 1 to 7). The mandible was resected and the new bone assessed by radiography and histology. The expression of BMPs was also analyzed using immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: There was radiographic and histologic evidence of bone formation during the distraction period. By week 6, there was mature woven bone within the distraction zone. Bone morphogenetic proteins 2 and 4 were strongly expressed in osteoblasts during distraction and in chondrocytes during consolidation. The expression of BMP-7 was relatively minor. CONCLUSION: The temporal and spatial pattern of BMP expression suggests that these proteins are important mediators of mandibular DO. Understanding the expression of BMPs may facilitate the use of recombinant proteins to enhance the rate and quality of bone generation during craniofacial DO.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".