MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367669865 · doi:10.1111/jre.13131

The role of <scp>rhFGF</scp>‐2 in periodontal defect bone fill: A systematic review of the literature

2023· review· en· W4367669865 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria – Myrsini Pouliou, Ioannis Fragkioudakis, Aikaterini‐Elisavet Doufexi, Leonidas Batas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Periodontal Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryRadiographyBone formationOrthodonticsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Growth factors have been used with success in periodontal regeneration, especially in intrabony defects. Among those, the recombined form of fibroblast growth factor-2 (rhFGF-2) has been also examined. OBJECTIVE: To address the outcomes of periodontal regeneration using rhFGF-2 alone or in combination with bone substitutes primarily in terms of Radiographic Bone Fill (RBF%) and secondary Probing Pocket Depth (PPD), and Probing Attachment Levels (PAL). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search in MEDLINE and EMBASE using the Ovid interface was conducted from 2000 up to and including the 12th of November 2022. Starting from the initially identified 1289 articles, 34 studies were selected for further analysis. Following the full-text screening, 7 of the 34 studies met the inclusion criteria and thus were included in the systematic review after assessing their quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Clinical and radiographic results (bone gain, pocket depth, and clinical attachment level) after the application of FGF-2 alone or in combination with different carriers were studied in patients with intrabony defects of at least one wall and pocket depth greater than 4 mm. RESULTS: Primary outcomes: RBF% was higher in studies using a combination of rhFGF-2 and bone substitutes (74.6 ± 20.0%) compared to others using the specific growth factor alone or negative controls (22.7 ± 20.7%). In terms of secondary outcomes, the analysis failed to show an additional benefit from the use of the rhFGF-2 alone or in combination with bone substitutes. CONCLUSION: rhFGF-2 can improve RBF% in the treatment of periodontal defects, especially when it is used in combination with a bone substitute.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Periodontal ResearchSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207