MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918241548 · doi:10.1111/cid.12729

Buccal fat pad‐derived stem cells with anorganic bovine bone mineral scaffold for augmentation of atrophic posterior mandible: An exploratory prospective clinical study

2019· article· en· W2918241548 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arash Khojasteh, Sepanta Hosseinpour, Maryam Rezai Rad, Marzieh Alikhasi, Homayoun H. Zadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuccal fat padAlveolar ridgeMandible (arthropod mouthpart)MedicineDentistryBuccal administrationDental alveolusImplantSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Application of adipose‐derived stem cells originated from buccal fat pad (BFP) can simplify surgical procedures and diminish clinical risks compared to large autograft harvesting. Purpose This study sought to evaluate and compare the efficacy of buccal fat pad‐derived stem cells (BFPSCs) in combination with anorganic bovine bone mineral (ABBM) for vertical and horizontal augmentation of atrophic posterior mandibles. Materials and Methods Fourteen patients with atrophic posterior mandible were elected for this prospective exploratory study. BFP (3‐5 mL) was harvested and BFPSCs were isolated and combined with ABBM at 50% ratio. The vertical and horizontal alveolar deficiencies were augmented by 50% mixture of ABBM with either BFPSCs (group 1) or particulated autologous bone (group 2). Titanium mesh was contoured to the desired 3D shape of the alveolar ridge and fixated to the host sites over the graft material of the two groups. At first, the amount of new bone areas was calculated by quantitative analysis of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images that were taken 6 months postoperatively according to regenerative techniques (group 1 vs group 2 without considering the type of bone defects). Second, these amounts were calculated in each group based on the type of defects. Results Quantitative analysis of CBCT images revealed the areas of new bone formation were 169.5 ± 5.90 mm2 and 166.75 ± 10.05 mm2 in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The area of new bone formation for vertical defects were 164.91 ± 3.74 mm2 and 169.36 ± 12.09 mm2 in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The area of new bone formation for horizontal deficiencies were 170.51 ± 4.54 mm2 and 166.98 ± 9.36 mm2 in groups 1 and 2, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the pair‐wise comparisons (P > 0.05). Conclusions The findings of the present study demonstrated lack of difference in bone volume formation between BFPSCs and autologous particulate bone in combination with ABBM. If confirmed by future large‐scale clinical trial, BFPSCs may provide an alternative to autogenous bone for reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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