Influence of Demineralized Bone Matrix's Embryonic Origin on Bone Formation: An Experimental Study in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are results suggesting that differences regarding bone-inducing potential, in terms of amount and/or rate of bone formation, exist between demineralized bone matrices (DBMs) of different embryonic origins. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to examine whether the embryonic origin of DBM affects bone formation when used as an adjunct to guided tissue regeneration (GTR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Endomembranous (EM) and endochondral (ECH) DBMs were produced from calvarial and long bones of rats, respectively. Prior to the study the osteoinductive properties of the DBMs were confirmed in six rats following intramuscular implantation. Following surgical exposure of the mandibular ramus, a rigid hemispheric Teflon capsule loosely packed with a standardized quantity of DBM was placed with its open part facing the lateral surface of the ramus in both sides of the jaw in 30 rats. In one side of the jaw, chosen at random, the capsule was filled with EM-DBM, whereas in the other side ECH-DBM was used. Groups of 10 animals were sacrificed after healing periods of 1, 2, and 4 months, and undecalcified sections of the capsules were produced and subjected to histologic analysis and computer-assisted planimetric measurements. RESULTS: During the experiment increasing amounts of newly formed bone were observed inside the capsules in both sides of the animals' jaws. Limited bone formation was observed in the 1- and 2-month specimens, but after 4 months of healing, the newly formed bone in the ECH-DBM grafted sides occupied 59.1% (range 45.6-74.7%) of the area created by the capsule versus 46.9% (range 23.0-64.0%) in the EM-DBM grafted sides (p =.01). CONCLUSION: It is concluded that the embryonic origin of DBM influences bone formation by GTR and that ECH-DBM is superior to EM-DBM.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".