ライフサイエンスコーパス: GTR

1 GTR is related to better prognosis.

2 GTR procedure was performed in furcation defect sites us

3 GTR provides clinicians with the opportunity to reverse

4 GTR resulted in significantly better root coverage compa

5 GTR therapy utilizing bioabsorbable membranes offers the

6 GTR therapy was associated with significantly lower CV f

7 GTR was observable as a 49-kDa band on sodium dodecyl su

8 GTR-based procedures with or without combined grafting t

9 GTR-based root coverage utilizing collagen membrane, wit

10 /- 12 months in both groups (CTG: P = 0.097; GTR: P = 0.190), 1.57 +/- 2.12 mm (CTG) and 1.19 +/- 2.3

11 enerative therapy (seven DBM, 22 BRG, and 26 GTR) to OFD and meeting inclusion criteria provided mean

12 Purified His(6)-GTR was catalytically active in vitro when it was incuba

13 eases the regenerative potential of MPP as a GTR membrane and results in increased defect fill.

14 ccumulate in the leaf abaxial epidermis in a GTR-independent manner.

15 cid sequence has more than 55% identity to a GTR sequence of Arabidopsis thaliana, and significant si

16 Divergence times obtained using a GTR + Gamma model differed only slightly (~3% on average

17 to compare these 2 techniques, SCTG versus a GTR-based procedure (GTRC), for root coverage/recession

18 Delays >8 weeks in patients with a GTR and delays <4 weeks in patients with a STR/biopsy re

19 finity column chromatography to yield active GTR.

20 After GTR, CAL gains were 4.6 +/- 2 mm.

21 ort study was to evaluate the outcomes after GTR, their stability and the survival of the treated tee

22 TFE membranes, recovered from patients after GTR; cells adherent to ePTFE augmentation membranes, rec

23 as greater than 96% more than 10 years after GTR.

24 DBM was discernible in all GTR+DBM defects with limited, if any, evidence of bone m

25 by use of the bioabsorbable membrane alone (GTR, or control group).

26 In study-level meta-analysis, GTR had a lower mortality risk than STR at 1 year (RR, 0

27 emineralized freeze-dried bone allograft and GTR and superior to open flap debridement procedures in

28 ignificantly augment the effects of BPBM and GTR in promoting the clinical resolution of intrabony de

29 The individual role played by PRP, BPBM, and GTR in this combined therapy is unclear and needs to be

30 rage after 240 +/- 12 months between CTG and GTR (P = 0.448) and patients' assessments of their treat

31 show significant differences between CTG and GTR at 20 years post-surgery.

32 Although differences between CTG and GTR in mean root coverage and prevalence of complete cov

33 Differences between GTR+DBM and GTR defects were evaluated using a paired t-test (N = 6)

34 n 2.0+/-1.3 and 1.6+/-1.7 mm for GTR+DBM and GTR defects, respectively.

35 ation were observed for both the GTR+DBM and GTR defects.

36 DBM and GTR therapy support more consistent improvements in clin

37 mbination technique including BPBM, EMP, and GTR results in better clinical resolution of intrabony d

38 VBF in MBA and GTR + MBA groups was significantly higher than that in t

39 /-0.9 mm, and 1.1+/-0.9 mm for OFD, MBA, and GTR+MBA groups, respectively.

40 ee topology inferences using both NREV12 and GTR became more accurate, whereas inferred tree branch l

41 bout 2-fold at 2 h into the light phase, and GTR protein levels also increased and peaked 2-fold at 4

42 P < .001) after adjustment for age, sex, and GTR status.

43 g the use of combination techniques, such as GTR procedures with osseous grafts.

44 PRGF with GTR, as well as GTR alone, was effective in improving clinical and radio

45 ut further therapy, which supports attempted GTR of cerebral and cerebellar hemisphere low-grade astr

46 = 2 mm compared with the CAL observed before GTR treatment, and loss of > or = 2 mm compared with the

47 Differences between GTR+DBM and GTR defects were evaluated using a paired t-

48 FE) membranes were used to provide bilateral GTR.

49 tudy show that both combinations of PRP/BPBM/GTR and PRP/BPBM are effective in the treatment of intra

50 /- 0.83 mm on lingual sites for the PRP/BPBM/GTR group.

51 /- 0.92 mm on lingual sites for the PRP/BPBM/GTR group.

52 4.74 +/- 1.30 mm on lingual sites; PRP/BPBM/GTR group: 4.96 +/- 1.28 mm on buccal and 4.78 +/- 1.32

53 reated with either a combination of PRP/BPBM/GTR or PRP/BPBM.

54 defects in humans: a combination of PRP/BPBM/GTR versus a combination of PRP/BPBM.

55 BM/GTR/PRP (experimental group) or with BPBM/GTR (control group).

56 Defects were treated with BPBM/GTR/PRP (experimental group) or with BPBM/GTR (control g

57 ionality fails to be fully re-established by GTR after disease or trauma.

58 e glutamyl-tRNA-dependent NADPH oxidation by GTR.

59 Each patient was treated by GTR using a bioabsorbable membrane.

60 alysis shows that the site-heterogeneous CAT-GTR model, which recovers "Protura-sister," fits signifi

61 ed by complementation of an Escherichia coli GTR-defective mutant for restoration of ALA prototrophy.

62 Log rank test confirmed GTR correlated with significantly better survival.

63 In a coupled enzyme assay containing GTR and wild-type GSAT, addition of inactive mutant GSAT

64 R had 60 to 70% less bound heme than control GTR, and it was inhibited by hemin in vitro.

65 mly assigned to test (PRGF+GTR) and control (GTR alone) treatment groups.

66 e anatomy of the resulting intrabony defect, GTR was considered the ideal treatment.

67 ridement followed by the placement of DFDBA (GTR+DFDBA, or test group) and a bioabsorbable barrier, w

68 ingival recession defects by means of either GTR or CTG results in clinically and statistically signi

69 is limited by ALA and that the hemA-encoded GTR reductase is a rate-limiting enzyme in the pathway.

70 The hemA-encoded GTR reductase was found to be regulated by ALA.

71 bean (Glycine max) root-nodule cDNA encoding GTR was isolated by complementation of an Escherichia co

72 ng expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), GTR using a bioabsorbable membrane with or without demin

73 t inhibit the activity of purified expressed GTR in vitro.

74 The expressed GTR contained 1 mol of tightly bound heme per mol of pep

75 etention and clinical improvements following GTR treatment of intrabony defects can be maintained lon

76 ive results from the utilization of DUIS for GTR and the advantage of its bioresorbability warrant fu

77 ived a collagen/polylactic acid membrane for GTR.

78 regeneration 2.0+/-1.3 and 1.6+/-1.7 mm for GTR+DBM and GTR defects, respectively.

79 PDLC microtissues as in vivo-like model for GTR.

80 ta-analysis revealed decreased mortality for GTR compared with STR at 1 year (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-

81 ed by the expression levels of the mRNAs for GTR or GSAT, or by the cellular abundance of these enzym

82 t significantly enhanced space provision for GTR while alveolar bone formation appeared to be enhance

83 Variability in defect fill was similar for GTR and OFD.

84 with a 13% increased likelihood of foregoing GTR (64 of 102 patients [63%]) or long-term postoperativ

85 Cells from GTR membranes which did not exhibit gains in clinical at

86 h cells from GBR procedures, most cells from GTR procedures also secreted lower amounts of TIMP-1.

87 T for binding to GTR and channeling GSA from GTR to GSAT.

88 Confidence and credibility intervals from GTR + Gamma analysis usually contained correct times.

89 However, GTR and GSAT were present at all phases of the cycle.

90 If GTR is not achieved, adjuvant therapy might delay tumour

91 In GTR/EMD with and without laser treatment, the WMD of CAL

92 defects, the use of PLA or ePTFE barriers in GTR procedures yielded comparable clinical results; howe

93 ked collagen membrane could be beneficial in GTR treatment of Class II mandibular furcation involveme

94 be used successfully as a barrier device in GTR-based root coverage procedures.

95 FD, 1.9+/-1.4 mm in MBA, and 0.7+/-0.9 mm in GTR+MBA groups.

96 to the efficacy of bone substitutes used in GTR procedures.

97 the defect left after the removal of an LPC, GTR, along with bone grafting, can be a very useful tool

98 Purified mature GTR was not inhibited by heme, but heme inhibition was r

99 The deduced C. reinhardtii mature GTR amino acid sequence has more than 55% identity to a

100 tly affects the outcome of collagen membrane GTR-based root coverage procedures.

101 the following therapies: collagen membrane (GTR), human demineralized freeze-dried bone (DFDB) graft

102 ssue regeneration with resorbable membranes (GTR rm) + CAF (mean difference [MD]: -0.37 mm).

103 1.57 +/- 2.12 mm (CTG) and 1.19 +/- 2.31 mm (GTR) of the achieved coverage after 3 months were lost.

104 een the most commonly investigated modality, GTR, biologics, and combination therapies have also been

105 approximately 40 kDa, indicating that native GTR is a monomer.

106 Compared with the non-GTR group, the GTR significantly decreased the R/P rate

107 ggest an in vivo-like model to develop novel GTR approaches due to its three-dimensionality.

108 gains > or = 4 mm were observed in 50.9% of GTR sites and 33.3% of control sites.

109 the CAL observed 1 year after completion of GTR.

110 have been conducted utilizing the concept of GTR to promote root coverage.

111 ood prospects for the further development of GTR membranes.

112 y published study of the clinical effects of GTR therapy without the use of bone or bone substitutes

113 earlier study which compared the effects of GTR utilizing an ePTFE or a PLA barrier in intrabony def

114 defects, as well as the general efficacy of GTR in different clinical settings.

115 and histologically evaluate the efficacy of GTR-based root coverage using collagen membrane (GTRC) a

116 r evidence supporting kinetic interaction of GTR and GSAT is the observation that both wild-type and

117 However, at present, the outcomes of GTR procedures have not been shown to be predictable.

118 files identified distinct sub-populations of GTR cells in which fibronectin expression was markedly u

119 tion was to assess the long-term survival of GTR treated sites in terms of clinical attachment level

120 ived GTR and the coral biomaterial (cGTR) or GTR alone.

121 I and II recession defects underwent CTG or GTR according to random assignment.

122 ns, in regenerative studies comparing DBM or GTR to OFD therapy for the management of intrabony defec

123 toperative CRT after near-total resection or GTR.

124 s study show that, among patients with pHGG, GTR is independently associated with better overall surv

125 0.001) reject the most general phylogenetic (GTR) models commonly in use.

126 hile loss of CAL compared to the 1-year post-GTR result was observed in 37.8% of cases.

127 defects were randomly assigned to test (PRGF+GTR) and control (GTR alone) treatment groups.

128 he web and through FTP (ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/pub/GTR/_README.html).

129 an inhibitor of heme synthesis, the purified GTR had 60 to 70% less bound heme than control GTR, and

130 hood trees for each combination using RAxML (GTR + Gamma), and compared their topologies to the corre

131 aw quadrants in consecutive animals received GTR and the coral biomaterial (cGTR) or GTR alone.

132 We have used purified recombinant GTR and GSAT from the unicellular alga Chlamydomonas rei

133 rifugation results indicate that recombinant GTR and GSAT enzymes specifically interact.

134 The enzyme glutamyl-tRNA reductase (GTR) catalyzes the first committed step in this pathway,

135 mialdehyde (GSA) by glutamyl-tRNA reductase (GTR) in an NADPH-dependent reaction.

136 sis is catalyzed by glutamyl-tRNA reductase (GTR) in plants.

137 The enzyme glutamyl-tRNA reductase (GTR), encoded by the hemA gene, catalyzes the first comm

138 mialdehyde (GSA) by glutamyl-tRNA reductase (GTR).

139 e major tools of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) after periodontal disease.

140 LPC treated with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) and bone allograft.

141 alyses comparing guided tissue regeneration (GTR) and open flap debridement (OFD) over a 10-to 20-yea

142 ble membrane for guided tissue regeneration (GTR) as regenerative therapy for intrabony defects in hu

143 igid membrane in guided tissue regeneration (GTR) for osseous defects.

144 bone grafts and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) for the correction of intrabony and furcation defec

145 /- 2.1 mm in the guided tissue regeneration (GTR) group and 2.6 +/- 1.8 mm in the control group (P =

146 The use of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) has become an effective procedure for the treatment

147 eral (BPBM), and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) has been shown to be effective in promoting reducti

148 ical benefits of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) has not been fully explored.

149 term efficacy of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) in Class II furcation defects and establish the fac

150 ment outcomes of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) in furcation defects is imperative in order to obta

151 neral (BPBM) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) in the treatment of intrabony defects in humans.

152 Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) is a clinical procedure used to restore the attachm

153 aterials used in guided tissue regeneration (GTR) is known to adversely affect treatment outcomes.

154 the outcomes of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) is scarce.

155 gen barrier as a guided tissue regeneration (GTR) material has shown particular promise in procedures

156 biomaterial and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) membranes, and were evaluated following a 4-week he

157 ximal defects by guided tissue regeneration (GTR) necessitates inclusion of healthy adjacent teeth to

158 widely used for guided tissue regeneration (GTR) of the human periodontal ligament (PL).

159 the effect of a guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedure in comparison to connective tissue graft

160 The use of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedures in the treatment of gingival recession h

161 tudied following guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedures using both nonresorbable and bioabsorbab

162 For guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedures, collagen membranes have been shown to b

163 ation for use in guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedures.

164 matrix (DBM) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) support substantial gains in clinical attachment le

165 Clinicians using guided tissue regeneration (GTR) techniques are also enjoying significant success in

166 Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) techniques have been reported to enhance bone regen

167 tcomes following guided tissue regeneration (GTR) treating human Class II furcation defects with a ne

168 Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) uses expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membr

169 rafting (CTG) or guided tissue regeneration (GTR) using bioabsorbable barriers for root coverage ther

170 wing treatments: guided tissue regeneration (GTR) using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), GTR

171 associated with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) versus GTR only in the treatment of intrabony defec

172 ement grafts and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) were defined as state of the art for clinical perio

173 e the effects of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) non-r

174 Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with resorbable (GTRr) and non-resorbable (GTRnr) m

175 Guided tissue regeneration (GTR)-based root coverage has been utilized to correct gi

176 en membranes for guided tissue regeneration (GTR)-based root coverage procedures have reported promis

177 rier membrane in guided tissue regeneration (GTR)-based root coverage procedures.

178 In addition, guided tissue regeneration (GTR)-based root coverage using collagen membrane (GTRC)

179 tcomes following guided tissue regeneration (GTR).

180 matrix (DBM) to guided tissue regeneration (GTR).

181 ugh resection is guided tissue regeneration (GTR).

182 r determinant of guided tissue regeneration (GTR).

183 ement grafts and guided tissue regeneration (GTR).

184 Similarly, in guided tissue regeneration (GTR)/enamel matrix derivative (EMD) with and without las

185 llagen membrane (guided tissue regeneration [GTR]+MBA) groups.

186 s available at the genetic testing registry (GTR) from the National Center for Biotechnological Infor

187 llular green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, GTR and GSAT were found in the chloroplasts and were not

188 undergoing less than gross total resection (GTR) or experiencing long-term facial paresis.

189 ally benign behavior, gross total resection (GTR) remains the standard of care.

190 ent for age, sex, and gross total resection (GTR) status.

191 Gross total resection (GTR) was achieved in 119 cases (70.8%) with the complica

192 Gross total resection (GTR) was achieved in 16/27 (59.3%) patients, subtotal re

193 Gross total resection (GTR) was attempted for cerebellar and cerebral hemispher

194 gher KPS, obtaining a gross total resection (GTR), MGMT promoter-methylated gene status, unifocal dis

195 ssess mortality after gross total resection (GTR), subtotal resection (STR), and biopsy.

196 a were observed after gross total resection (GTR).

197 subtotal resection, and near-total resection/GTR groups given immediate postoperative CRT, respective

198 cted transit peptide, the mature 480-residue GTR has a calculated molecular weight of 52,502.

199 spikes called the gap termination response (GTR).

200 better fit than the general time reversible (GTR) and NREV6 models to 21/31 dsRNA and 20/30 dsDNA dat

201 Frequently the same General Time Reversible (GTR) model across lineages along with a gamma (+Gamma) d

202 The nonstationary general time reversible (GTR) model, used with AWP or EMC, accurately recovered t

203 ), symmetric (SYM), general time-reversible (GTR) and all rates different (ARD).

204 Compared with STR, GTR substantially improves overall and progression-free

205 icantly associated with tumor resection (STR/GTR), years of diagnosis after 2006, African American an

206 the limitations of this study, data suggests GTR is a good option for the treatment of infrabony defe

207 the limitations of this study, data suggests GTR using allogeneic cancellous bone graft and absorbabl

208 The His-tagged GTR protein was purified using Ni affinity column chroma

209 cells contained significantly more GSAT than GTR on a molar basis.

210 llowing primary SRS/FSRT underwent less than GTR or experienced some degree of facial paresis long te

211 etter relative root coverage percentage than GTR after 3 (P = 0.026) and 120 (P = 0.038) months.

212 rt the in vitro results and demonstrate that GTR and GSAT are components of a high molecular mass com

213 alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii to show that GTR and GSAT form a physical and functional complex that

214 The results also suggest that GTR adds no clinical benefit to PRP/BPBM.

215 The GTR mRNA level increased in the light and peaked about 2

216 The GTR-based technique using PCG was effective in reducing

217 stically significant differences between the GTR+DBM versus the GTR condition for any histometric par

218 ntum regeneration were observed for both the GTR+DBM and GTR defects.

219 To characterize the GTR protein, the hemA gene from C. vibrioforme was clone

220 Mean CAL gain was 2.0 mm for the GTR group and 2.2 mm for the CTG group.

221 ce of complete root coverage was 58% for the GTR group and 83% for the CTG group.

222 mm) were obtained 1 year postsurgery for the GTR sites.

223 Compared with the non-GTR group, the GTR significantly decreased the R/P rate (P = 0.001), pr

224 ever, it remains unknown whether and how the GTR plays a causal role in gap detection.

225 , the WMD of PD was negligible; however, the GTR/EMD group showed better outcomes (P = 0.005) than th

226 on the tumor classification to improved the GTR and quality of life for patients.

227 efore, the bias introduced by the use of the GTR + Gamma model to analyze datasets, in which the time

228 ed factors significant to the success of the GTR procedures, should enhance the consistency of the cl

229 2-fold greater in cGTR sites compared to the GTR control (3.3 +/- 1.8 versus 1.4 +/- 0.5 mm2), howeve

230 in this study, the addition of DFDBA to the GTR procedure did not significantly enhance the clinical

231 time estimates that resulted from using the GTR + Gamma model for the analysis of computer-simulated

232 t differences between the GTR+DBM versus the GTR condition for any histometric parameter examined.

233 However, when the GTR was expressed in the presence of 3-amino-2,3- dihydr

234 hance the clinical results obtained with the GTR procedure alone.

235 bone (DFDB) grafting (BG), combined therapy (GTR + BG) and a DFDB-glycoprotein sponge matrix (MAT).

236 for non-contained defects, combined therapy (GTR + BG) demonstrated clinically significant (P < or =

237 ollowing guided tissue regeneration therapy (GTR) with a bioabsorbable barrier composed of polylactic

238 value of the coral implant as an adjunct to GTR.

239 een wild-type and mutant GSAT for binding to GTR and channeling GSA from GTR to GSAT.

240 : -1.06 mm), and SCTG + CAF when compared to GTR rm + CAF (MD: -1.77 mm).

241 e provision was enhanced in cGTR compared to GTR sites (6.1 +/- 1.6 versus 2.4 +/- 0.8 mm2; P<0.05).

242 significantly increased in cGTR compared to GTR sites averaging 1.9 +/- 0.6 and 1.2 +/- 0.6 mm, resp

243 needed to determine whether adding DFDBA to GTR-based procedures using collagen membranes is of any

244 freeze-dried DBM has no adjunctive effect to GTR in periodontal fenestration defects over a four-week

245 Clinical data related to GTR therapy for Class II furcations were analyzed from 7

246 psis thaliana, and significant similarity to GTR proteins of other plants and prokaryotes.

247 f rHb1.1 and the hemA-encoded glutamyl-tRNA (GTR) reductase increased intracellular levels of ALA and

248 se findings suggest that patients undergoing GTR procedures with synthetic absorbable devices for the

249 s 59.4 Gy, except for patients who underwent GTR and were younger than age 18 months (who received 54

250 Generally, cells from unsuccessful GTR procedures produced low molecular weight gelatinases

251 one regeneration capacity of a commonly used GTR procedure (demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft

252 Studies were identified that used GTR approaches to treat gingival recession from January

253 with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) versus GTR only in the treatment of intrabony defects (IBDs) in

254 ther directly from biosynthetic cells or via GTR-mediated import from apoplastic space radially into

255 icant difference in PFS for patients in whom GTR was achieved versus those with incomplete resections

256 additive effect of PRGF when used along with GTR in the treatment of IBDs in patients with CP in term

257 f this study show that cells associated with GTR barrier membranes and with the underlying tissue app

258 re used to examine the cells associated with GTR compared with normal human PL and gingival cells.

259 ion of clinical failures was associated with GTR therapy.

260 had shortened overall survival compared with GTR but no survival differences between them (HR, 0.91;

261 um carbonate biomaterial in conjunction with GTR.

262 od of disease progression was decreased with GTR compared with STR at 6 months (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.4

263 reased from 2.5 mm presurgery to 0.5 mm with GTR (81% root coverage), and from 2.5 mm to 0.1 mm with

264 al with RT delay <=4 weeks and patients with GTR had worsened survival when RT was delayed >8 weeks.

265 PRGF with GTR, as well as GTR alone, was effective in improving cl

266 lar bone and to improve space provision with GTR devices.

267 All sites had been treated with GTR more than 2 years previously and had received full p

268 Infrabony defects treated with GTR using a bioabsorbable membrane and a bone graft subs

269 Furcation defects treated with GTR using an allogeneic cancellous bone graft and covere

270 val of furcation-involved teeth treated with GTR, and potential factors affecting the results.