MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366547823 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2658440/v1

Hydrogel-chitosan and polylactic acid-polycaprolactone bioengineered scaffolds for reconstruction of mandibular defects: a preclinical in vivo study with assessment of translationally relevant aspects

2023· preprint· en· W4366547823 on OpenAlexafffund
Marco Ferrari, Stefano Taboni, Harley Chan, Jason L. Townson, Tommaso Gualtieri, Leonardo Franz, Alessandra Ruaro, Smitha Mathews, Michael J. Daly, Catriona M. Douglas, Donovan Eu, Axel Sahovaler, Nidal Muhanna, Manuela Ventura, Kamol Dey, Stefano Pandini, Chiara Pasini, Federica Re, Simona Bernardi, Katia Bosio, Davide Mattavelli, Francesco Doglietto, Shrinidh Joshi, Ralph Gilbert, Piero Nicolai, Sowmya Viswanathan, Luciana Sartore, Domenico Russo, Jonathan C. Irish

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsKrembil FoundationUniversity Health Network
FundersUniversità degli Studi di BresciaFondazione della Comunità BrescianaPrincess Margaret Cancer Foundation
KeywordsPolylactic acidScaffoldIn vivoBiomedical engineeringRegeneration (biology)Tissue engineeringEx vivoMesenchymal stem cellChitosanImmunohistochemistryMaterials scienceMedicinePathologyChemistryCell biologyBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Reconstruction of mandibular bone defects is a surgical challenge, and microvascular reconstruction is the current gold standard. The field of tissue bioengineering has been providing an increasing number of alternative strategies for bone reconstruction.Methods In this preclinical study, the performance of two bioengineered scaffolds, an hydrogel made of polyethylene glycol-chitosan (HyCh) and an hybrid core-shell combination of poly(L-lactic acid)/poly(\(\epsilon\)-caprolactone) and HyCh (PLA-PCL-HyCh), seeded with different concentrations of human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) (i.e. 1000, 2000, and 3000 cells/mm3), has been explored in non-critical size mandibular defects in a rabbit model. The bone regenerative properties of the bioengineered scaffolds were analyzed by in vivo radiological examinations and ex vivo radiological, histomorphological, and immunohistochemical analyses.Results The relative density increase (RDI) was significantly more pronounced in defects where a scaffold was placed, particularly if seeded with hMSCs (2000 and 3000 cells/mm3). The immunohistochemical profile showed significantly higher expression of both VEGF-A, in defects reconstructed with a PLA-PCL-HyCh, and osteopontin, in defects reconstructed with both scaffolds. Native microarchitectural characteristics were not demonstrated in any experimental group.Conclusions Herein, we demonstrate that bone regeneration can be boosted by scaffold- and seeded scaffold-reconstruction, achieving, respectively, 50% and 70% restoration of presurgical bone density in 120 days, compared to 40% restoration seen in spontaneous regeneration. Although optimization of the regenerative performance is needed, these results will help to establish a baseline reference for future experiments.

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)0.000
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207