Efficacy of Hank's balanced salt solution compared to other solutions in the preservation of the periodontal ligament. A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) aimed to verify the capacity of different storage media to preserve viability of periodontal ligament cells in comparison to Hank's Balanced Salt Solution. The searches, selection process, data extraction and Risk of Bias control were conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Five MA were conducted to compare the cell viability between milk versus Hank's balanced salt solution (HBSS) in a dichotomous (1) or continuous (2) data model; tap water versus HBSS (3); medicinal herbals versus HBSS (4); and saline solution versus HBSS (5). 693 potentially studies were identified, with 18 studies included in the qualitative and 8 studies included in the quantitative analysis. Most of the articles presented a low risk of bias. HBSS medium showed a superior ratio of cell viability compared to tap water (RR 0.26; 95% CI [0.21, 0.32]; p < 0.00001; I2 = 96%) and saline solution (RR 0.76; 95% CI [0.69, 0.84]; p < 0.0001; I2 = 99%). Herbal medicines showed a similar ratio of cell viability when compared to HBSS (RR 0.97; 95% CI [0.94, 1.00]; p = 0.08; I2 = 50%). Mixed results were observed between milk and HBSS: a superior ratio of HBSS was observed in an overall evaluation (RR 0.26; 95% CI [0.21, 0.32]; p < 0.00001; I2 = 96%), and a similar ratio was achieved when periodontal ligament (PDL) cells were removed prior to immersion in the solution (RR 0.94; 95% CI [0.87, 1.01]; p = 0.10; I2 = 0%) or rinsed in tap water or maintained in open air prior to immersion (RR 0.63; 95% CI [0.35, 1.12]; p = 0.11; I2 = not applicable). This systematic review and MA suggests that milk and herbal medicines could represent an alternative to HBSS. However, more studies are necessary to obtain a reliable conclusion.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".