Anti-Inflammatory Effect of Eugenia Jambolana on Epithelial Thickness in Induced Gingivitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to correlate the histological changes in gingival epithelium, after tropical application of Eugenia jambolana and to observe the effect of Eugenia jambolana extract on the thickness of epithelium on induced gingivitis in albino rats. Material and Methods: This experimental study was conducted in the animal house, Anatomy Department, Post Graduate Medical Institute, Lahore, Pakistan. A total of 48 albino rats were selected and were further divided into three main groups i.e. Group A (Control; healthy mucosa, no intervention), Group B (Experimental B; inflamed mucosa with an application of extract), and Group C (Experimental C; inflamed mucosa with no intervention) having 4 subgroups each based on the number of days i.e. 3rd, 4th, 10th and 20th day. Histological changes in the buccal mucosa were observed on the respective days, after inducing the gingivitis in both the control and experimental group. Results: Results were recorded on the 3rd, 4th, 10th and 20th days. On the 3rd day, signs of severe gingivitis appeared in both experimental groups 1B and 1C. An epithelial thickness of 12.00±2.160µm was observed in group 1B and, 10.2/5±1.708 µm in group 1C. On day 4th, in group-2B, the epithelial thickness was 12µm±1.633µm. The epithelial thickness was 10.25µm±1.708µm in group C. On day 10th, group 3B exhibited, a thickness of 20.00 µm±1.633µm. In group 3C, the thickness of epithelium was 23.75µm±1.258µm. On day 20th, the thickness was 23µm ±1.155µm in group 4B. In group 4C, the thickness was 24µm ±1.414µm. Conclusion: This study proved the beneficial effects of Eugenia jambolana on the healing of gingivitis. The contents in Eugenia jambolana have an anti-inflammatory action on soft tissues which could be beneficial to treat gingivitis.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".