Microfragmented Fat and Biphasic Calcium Phosphates for Alveolar Cleft Repair: Protocol for a Prospective, Nonblinded, First-in-Human Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biphasic calcium phosphates (BCP) may serve as off-the-shelf alternatives for iliac crest-derived autologous bone in alveolar cleft reconstructions. To add osteoinductivity to the osteoconductive BCPs to achieve similar regenerative capacity as autologous bone, a locally harvested buccal fat pad will be mechanically fractionated to generate microfragmented fat (MFAT), which has been shown to have high regenerative capacity due to high pericyte and mesenchymal stem cell content and a preserved perivascular niche. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objectives will be to assess the feasibility and safety of the BCP-MFAT combination. The secondary objective will be efficacy, which will be evaluated using radiographic imaging and histological and histomorphometric evaluation of biopsies taken 6 months postoperatively, concomitant with dental implant placement. METHODS: Eight patients with alveolar cleft (≥15 years) will be included in this prospective, nonblinded, first-in-human clinical study. MFAT will be prepared intraoperatively from the patient's own buccal fat pad. Regular blood tests and physical examinations will be conducted, and any adverse events (AEs) or serious EAs (SAEs) will be meticulously recorded. Radiographic imaging will be performed prior to surgery and at regular intervals after reconstruction of the alveolar cleft with the BCP-MFAT combination. Biopsies obtained after 6 months with a trephine drill used to prepare the implantation site will be assessed with histological and histomorphometric analyses after methylmethacrylate embedding and sectioning. RESULTS: The primary outcome parameter will be safety after 6 months' follow-up, as monitored closely using possible occurrences of SAEs based on radiographic imaging, blood tests, and physical examinations. For efficacy, radiographic imaging will be used for clinical grading of the bone construct using the Bergland scale. In addition, bone parameters such as bone volume, osteoid volume, graft volume, and number of osteoclasts will be histomorphometrically quantified. Recruitment started in November 2019, and the trial is currently in the follow-up stage. This protocol's current version is 1.0, dated September 15, 2019. CONCLUSIONS: In this first-in-human study, not only safety but also the histologically and radiographically assessed regenerative potential of the BCP-MFAT combination will be evaluated in an alveolar cleft model. When an SAE occurs, it will be concluded that the BCP-MFAT combination is not yet safe in the current setting. Regarding AEs, if they do not occur at a higher frequency than that in patients treated with standard care (autologous bone) or can be resolved by noninvasive conventional methods (eg, with analgesics or antibiotics), the BCP-MFAT combination will be considered safe. In all other cases, the BCP-MFAT combination will not yet be considered safe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Indonesia Clinical Trial Registry INA-EW74C1N; https://tinyurl.com/28tnrr64. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/42371.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.010 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".