Histopathological Observations of a Polylactic Acid‐Based Device Intended for Guided Bone/Tissue Regeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Barrier devices have been shown to support alveolar bone and periodontal regeneration, a procedure also known as guided bone/tissue regeneration (GBR/GTR). Popular demand and clinical convenience have raised an interest in bioresorbable barrier devices. Tissue reactions to such bioresorbable devices are, however, generally not well explored. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate short- and long-term tissue reactions following implantation of a bioresorbable polylactic acid (PLA)-based barrier device using a rat model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one young adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were used. The animals were divided into three groups including 15 animals receiving the PLA device and animals serving as sham surgery (five) or nonoperated (one) controls. Using aseptic techniques, the PLA device was surgically implanted in direct contact with the calvarial bone. Animals receiving the PLA device were sacrificed at 3, 5, 7, and 12 months postsurgery to provide longitudinal histopathological observations of tissue and biomaterials reactions. Control animals were sacrificed at 3 months. RESULTS: Animals were maintained without adverse events. Sham surgery and nonoperated control animals showed no signs of new bone formation or resorption, or signs of inflammatory reactions in adjoining soft tissues. In contrast, extensive amounts of residual biomaterial with evidence of foreign body reactions and bone resorption were observed in animals receiving the PLA device over 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the PLA device may induce bone resorbing foreign body reactions. Importantly, the PLA device does not resorb within a 12-month healing interval. These biomaterials properties may influence new bone formation and maintenance when applying the device for GBR/GTR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".