Replantation of permanent incisors in children using Emdogain<sup>®</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether application of an enamel matrix protein derivative, Emdogain (Biora AB Malmo, Sweden) to the root surface of avulsed permanent incisors would improve postreplantation outcomes in a pediatric population. Between June 1999 and May 2002, 25 avulsed permanent maxillary incisors (22 centrals and three laterals) were treated with Emdogain and followed for up to 32 months, mean duration 20.6 months (range: 6.9-32.5 months). Mean patient age at the time of treatment was 12.0 years (range: 7.7-17.6 years) and mean extra-alveolar duration was 185 min (range: 100-300 min). At the end of their follow-up each of the replanted incisors demonstrated radiographic evidence of replacement root resorption and clinical evidence of ankylosis. None of the replanted teeth were affected by inflammatory root resorption and there was no evidence of infection. When compared with the control samples from Barrett and Kenny (Endod Dent Traumatol 1997;15:269-72.) and Andersson et al. (Endod Dent Traumatol 1989;5:38-47.) this sample treated with the Emdogain protocol demonstrated significantly less root resorption than either of the control samples (anova, P < 0.0001). Although the Emdogain protocol did not produce periodontal regeneration, it did eliminate inflammatory resorption and infection and led to significantly less root resorption compared with the two historical controls.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".