Distinctive Molecular Composition of Human Gingival Interdental Papilla
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gingiva is composed of attached and marginal (free) gingiva and interdental papilla. Increasing esthetic demands in dentistry have created a need to restore all parts of the gingiva. However, the interdental papilla has limited regeneration potential compared to other parts of the gingiva. It also is more susceptible to gingival overgrowth, suggesting that it has distinct cellular and molecular properties from other parts of the gingiva. Very little is known about the possible differences in the molecular composition of different parts of the gingiva. METHODS: We compared the expression of a set of key molecules in interdental papilla and marginal gingiva from seven healthy subjects by immunohistochemical staining. RESULTS: In the interdental papilla, immunoreactivity for integrin alphavbeta6 and cytokeratin 19 in the oral epithelium was significantly higher than in marginal gingiva. Expression of type I procollagen, extra domain A (EDA) and extra domain B (EDB) fibronectin isoforms, tenascin-C, transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta), connective tissue growth factor (CTGF), and the signaling molecule son-of-sevenless (SOS)-1 also were increased in the interdental papilla. The expression of small leucine-rich proteoglycans decorin, biglycan, fibromodulin, and lumican in the interdental papilla was partially different from the marginal gingiva. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular composition of the interdental papilla is distinct from marginal gingiva. Increased expression of molecules normally induced in wound healing (alphavbeta6 integrin, fibronectin-EDB and -EDA, tenascin-C, type I procollagen, TGF-beta, CTGF, and SOS-1) suggests that the cells in the interdental papilla are in an activated state and/or inherently display a specific phenotype resembling wound healing.
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) | 0.002 | 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".