Matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8) in pulpal and periapical inflammation and periapical root-canal exudates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To study the presence, levels and molecular forms of matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) -8 (collage-nase-2) in pulpal and periapical inflammation, and the changes in MMP-8 levels in root-canal exudates during root-canal treatment. METHODOLOGY: Periapical exudate samples were collected from 11 necrotic teeth with radiographically verified periapical periodontitis during three root-canal treatment visits with interappointment calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) medication. MMP-8 levels and molecular forms were analyzed with immunofluorescent assay (IFMA) and Western immunoblot. Inflamed pulp tissue and periapical granuloma tissue (n = 10 for both) were obtained from other patients and used for MMP-8 immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. RESULTS: The periapical exudate samples demonstrated marked differences in MMP-8 levels between the teeth in the first visit and significant decrease in MMP-8 levels during the root-canal treatment (P = 0.0107). One specimen failed to show a decrease in MMP-8 below 1000 ng mL(-1) a vertical root fracture was later diagnosed and the tooth extracted. IHC staining showed that in addition to PMN-leucocytes, macrophages and plasma cells produced MMP-8 in pulp and periapical granulomas. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate the presence of MMP-8 in the inflamed pulp and periapical tissue, indicating that MMP-8 has a role in pulpal and periapical inflammation, most likely participating in tissue extracellular matrix degradation. They further indicate that MMP analysis from periapical exudate could be used to indicate and monitor inflammatory activity and the success of treatment in teeth with periapical lesions.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".