Biomimicry and 3D-Printing of Mussel Adhesive Proteins for Regeneration of the Periodontium—A Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Innovation in the healthcare profession to solve complex human problems has always been emulated and based on solutions proven by nature. The conception of different biomimetic materials has allowed for extensive research that spans several fields, including biomechanics, material sciences, and microbiology. Due to the atypical characteristics of these biomaterials, dentistry can benefit from these applications in tissue engineering, regeneration, and replacement. This review highlights an overview of the application of different biomimetic biomaterials in dentistry and discusses the key biomaterials (hydroxyapatite, collagen, polymers) and biomimetic approaches (3D scaffolds, guided bone and tissue regeneration, bioadhesive gels) that have been researched to treat periodontal and peri-implant diseases in both natural dentition and dental implants. Following this, we focus on the recent novel application of mussel adhesive proteins (MAPs) and their appealing adhesive properties, in addition to their key chemical and structural properties that relate to the engineering, regeneration, and replacement of important anatomical structures in the periodontium, such as the periodontal ligament (PDL). We also outline the potential challenges in employing MAPs as a biomimetic biomaterial in dentistry based on the current evidence in the literature. This provides insight into the possible increased functional longevity of natural dentition that can be translated to implant dentistry in the near future. These strategies, paired with 3D printing and its clinical application in natural dentition and implant dentistry, develop the potential of a biomimetic approach to overcoming clinical problems in dentistry.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it