MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2625629605 · doi:10.1111/cid.12507

Histomorphometric and immunohistochemical assessment of RUNX2 and VEGF of Biogran™ and autogenous bone graft in human maxillary sinus bone augmentation: A prospective and randomized study

2017· article· en· W2625629605 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rodrigo dos Santos Pereira, Juliana Dreyer da Silva de Menezes, João Paulo Bonardi, Geraldo Luiz Griza, Roberta Okamoto, Eduardo Hochuli‐Vieira

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryMaxillary sinusImmunohistochemistryBone healingRUNX2Vascular endothelial growth factorBioactive glassOsteoblastPathologyAnatomyVEGF receptorsChemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Few studies have been conducted to assess new bone formation using Biogran, a bioactive glass, in maxillary sinus bone augmentation through a prospective and randomized evaluation. Moreover, there are no studies that evaluate cellular behavior by immunohistochemical assessment for osteoblastic and vascular activity during bone repair. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare new bone formation and cellular behavior with Biogran alone, a 1:1 combination of Biogran and autogenous bone graft, and autogenous bone graft alone in human maxillary sinuses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten maxillary sinuses were grafted with Biogran (Group 1), 10 grafted with Biogran added to autogenous bone graft in a 1:1 ratio (Group 2), and 10 grafted with autogenous bone graft alone (Group 3). After 6 months of bone healing, samples were obtained concurrent to the dental implants' placement to be evaluated by histomorphometric and immunohistochemical assessment for RUNX2 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). RESULTS: The amount of new bone formation in Group 1 was 42.0 ± 7.3% in the pristine bone region, 40.7 ± 14.0% in the intermediate region, and 45.6 ± 13.5% in apical region. In Group 2, for pristine bone, intermediate, and apical regions, new bone formation was 36.6 ± 12.9%, 33.2 ± 13.3%, and 45.8 ± 13.9%, respectively. Group 3 showed new bone formation of 37.3 ± 11.6%, 35.3 ± 14.7%, and 39.9 ± 15.8% in pristine bone, intermediate, and apical regions, respectively. The immunolabeling for RUNX2 showed low cellular activity in osteoblasts for all groups, and the VEGF assessment demonstrated moderate cellular activity in Groups 1 and 2; however, Group 3 presented with low activity in the pristine bone region, followed by moderate activity in the intermediate and apical region. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that Biogran and its combination with autogenous bone graft 1:1 are good bone substitutes due to their similarity to autogenous bone graft.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.402 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations38
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→