MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588443478 · doi:10.1111/cid.12473

Clinical and immunohistochemical performance of lyophilized platelet‐rich fibrin (Ly‐PRF) on tissue regeneration

2017· article· en· W2588443478 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jianming Zhang, Xingying Qi, Xiaoding Luo, Dan Li, Haorong Wang, Ting Li

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPlatelet-rich fibrinFibrinImmunohistochemistryBiomedical engineeringRegeneration (biology)DentistryMedicinePathologyBiologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) has been widely used in oral implantology and other fields, but benefits of the fresh PRF (FPRF (fresh platelet-rich fibrin)) were consequently limited because of its short-term application. Thus, a protocol for the combination of PRF and lyophilization comes up in the present study to address the issue of PRF storage and delayed clinical application, which has little been reported in this field at home and abroad by now. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the applicability of lyophilized platelet-rich fibrin (Ly-PRF) used as the scaffold material for craniofacial tissue regeneration and to compare its biochemical properties with commonly used fresh PRF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two volunteers with both genders were selected as the source of PRF and Ly-PRF samples. Macro- and micro-scopic appearance evaluation as well as immunohistochemical comparison were performed on PRF samples before and after freeze-drying at -196°C. The second experimental phase was to observe clinical performance when fresh and lyophilized PRF were applied in guided bone regeneration (GBR) operations in 39 patients losing teeth in the anterior maxillary region who required an oral implantation followed by labial bone grafting. RESULTS: has no statistical difference between them (P > .05) but that of IL-4 in Ly-PRF is statistically higher than in fresh PRF (P < .05). When applied in GBR operations, there were no significant differences between Ly-PRF and FPRF in factors of histological and clinical evaluations (i.e., color, swelling, bleeding of the mucosa, pain leveland, and remodeling of hard tissue) performed 3 days, 7 days, and 4 months after the surgery (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study strongly supports that lyophilization at -196°C does not largely influence the expression of bioactive factors, the microstructure of fibrinogen or the clinical effects of PRF.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207