MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404821936 · doi:10.1177/20406223241302707

Latest update on the use of recombinant growth factors for periodontal regeneration: existing evidence and clinical applications

2024· review· en· W4404821936 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anahat Khehra, Takahiko Shiba, Chia‐Yu Chen, David M. Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCementumMedicinePeriodontal fiberRegeneration (biology)Gingival recessionDentistryDental alveolusWound healingSurgeryDentinBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth factors were introduced to increase predictability in periodontal regeneration and have since been widely applied in dentistry. This narrative review article highlights histological and latest findings of recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB (rhPDGF-BB) and recombinant human fibroblast growth factor-2 (rhFGF-2) for periodontal regeneration. rhPDGF-BB enhances the proliferation and chemotaxis of periodontal ligament and alveolar bone cells. The optimal dose for rhPDGF-BB, in combination with beta-tricalcium phosphate, is 0.3 mg/ml. It is approved in the United States, Canada, and Taiwan for use in periodontal regeneration and treatment of gingival recession. rhFGF-2 promotes periodontal wound healing through mitogenic and angiogenic effects on mesenchymal cells in the periodontal ligament. It is approved in Japan at an optimal dose of 0.3% for periodontal regeneration in intrabony defects. Both recombinant growth factors show histological evidence of new bone, cementum, and periodontal ligament. Clinical studies demonstrate improved clinical attachment levels and defect resolution for treating intrabony and furcation periodontal defects. Presented clinical cases and consensus reports may serve as a reference for clinicians. rhPDGF-BB and rhFGF-2 are safe and effective biologics that can be applied to improve the outcomes of periodontal regeneration.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.342
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.143 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutic Advances in Chronic DiseaseSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207