Healing of Periodontal Tissues Following Transplantation of Cells in a Rat Orthodontic Tooth Movement Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the fate and differentiation of transplanted periodontal ligament (PL) precursor cells and mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells and their relative capacity to regenerate wounded periodontium. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Orthodontic tooth movement was introduced 24 hours before transplantation of PL or ES cells, and rats were euthanized either 24 hours or 72 hours after cell transplantation. The control rats received either no tooth movement and no cell transplantation or tooth movement and no cell transplantation. Differentiation of transplanted cells was assessed from mandibular periodontal histological tissue sections by immunohistochemical methods using monoclonal antibodies against PL cell differentiation markers. Data were analyzed using Student's t-test at a significance level of P = .05. RESULTS: Transplantation of PL and ES cells resulted in a higher number of osteopontin, bone sialoprotein, and alpha-smooth muscle actin labeled transplanted cells, predominantly around the blood vessels of the periodontium in study rats compared with control rats (cell transplantation but no orthodontic tooth movement, P = .05). Combined treatments of tooth movement and cell transplantation resulted in enhanced regeneration of the periodontium as a result of tooth movement. Transplantation of PL cells induced a higher number of differentiating cells in the PL and alveolar bone than did transplantation of ES cells. CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontic tooth movement promotes the differentiation of transplanted cells, and the differentiation occurs predominantly in the paravascular areas of the periodontium. In terms of regeneration of wounded periodontium, transplantation of PL cells produced a higher level of regeneration than ES cells, possibly because of PL cell plasticity and the capacity to undergo effective differentiation in the periodontal cellular microenvironment.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".