ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
A scoping review of mathematical modeling techniques for gingival keratinization: A framework for periodontal research.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Gingival keratinization is a critical physiological process that protects against mechanical stress and microbial invasion. Disruptions in this process contribute to periodontal diseases, affecting over 50% of adults worldwide. Despite its clinical significance, the molecular mechanisms of gingival keratinization remain poorly understood. This scoping review evaluates three predominant mathematical modeling paradigms-Gene Regulatory Networks (GRNs0, Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs), and Agent-Based Models (ABMs)-to establish a framework for periodontal research. Material and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore, identifying 42 studies for analysis. Models were assessed across six dimensions: biological scale, spatial-temporal resolution, stochasticity, computational complexity, and perturbation response. Quantitative scoring was applied to compare capabilities in gene expression, temporal dynamics, and spatial modeling. Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test. Results: ABMs demonstrated superior versatility (total score: 75.0%) in simulating spatial organization and mechanical stress responses, while GRNs excelled in gene expression modeling (score: 9/10) and ODEs in temporal dynamics (score: 7/10). Perturbation coverage was highest for ABMs (87.5%), particularly for inflammation and mechanical stress. GRNs and ODEs scored 62.1% and 65.2%, respectively, with strengths in genetic and population-level dynamics. Conclusions: ABMs are optimal for spatial and stochastic modeling, whereas GRNs and ODEs are better suited for molecular and temporal analyses. Integrating these approaches could provide a comprehensive understanding of gingival keratinization. This review offers guidelines for model selection based on research objectives and computational resources.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.