| Literature DB >> 26855867 |
Martina Von Böhl1, Yijin Ren2, Anne M Kuijpers-Jagtman1, Piotr S Fudalej3, Jaap C Maltha1.
Abstract
It is generally accepted that the effect of orthodontic tooth movement on the dental pulp in adolescents is reversible and that it has no long-lasting effect on pulpal physiology. However, it is not clear yet if the same conclusion is also valid for adult subjects. Thus, in two groups of rats, aged 6 and 40 weeks respectively, 3 molars at one side of the maxilla were moved together in a mesial direction with a standardized orthodontic appliance delivering a force of 10 cN. The contralateral side served as a control. Parasagittal histological sections were prepared after tooth movement for 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The pulp tissue was characterized for the different groups, with special emphasis on cell density, inflammatory cells, vascularity, and odontoblasts. Dimensions of dentin and the pulpal horns was determined and related with the duration of orthodontic force application and age ware evaluated. We found that neither in young nor in adult rats, force application led to long-lasting or irreversible changes in pulpal tissues. Dimensional variables showed significant age-related changes. In conclusion, orthodontic tooth movement per se has no long-lasting or irreversible effect on pulpal tissues, neither in the young nor in the adult animals.Entities:
Keywords: Ageing; Dental pulp; Orthodontics; Rats; Tooth movement; Wear
Year: 2016 PMID: 26855867 PMCID: PMC4741077 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.1625
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Schematic drawing of the orthodontic appliance.
The Sentalloy spring delivers a continuous force of 10 cN on all three molars together.
Figure 2Schematic drawing of a parasagittal section of a rat molar.
The measured parameters are indicated. For explanation see text.
Figure 3Histological sections of young (A, B, C) and old rats (D, E, F).
The most clear difference between the control and experimental pulpal tissue is that the latter show some more and wider blood vessels. The most prominent difference between the young and old animals is that in the latter, the odontoblasts are more well-organized and active, and the predentin layer is more pronounced. The low-power pictures show the dramatic difference in wear between the young and old animals. All sections H & E staining.
Means and standard deviations (sd) for the combined data of the dimensional parameters in the young and the adult groups.
| Age (weeks) | Crown | Dentin | Predentin | Pulpal horn | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Height | Cusp | Fissure | Cusp | Fissure | Height | |||||||
| Mean | sd | Mean | sd | Mean | sd | Mean | sd | Mean | sd | Mean | sd | |
| Young group | ||||||||||||
| 7 | 33.3 | 2.5 | 16.5 | 2.5 | 12.4 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 2.5 | 3.4 |
| 8 | 30.0 | 2.5 | 14.4 | 2.2 | 13.1 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 3.1 | 2.7 |
| 10 | 29.4 | 4.0 | 16.5 | 1.9 | 13.3 | 2.4 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 2.2 |
| 14 | 31.0 | 2.7 | 16.0 | 2.5 | 14.3 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 2.7 | 2.4 |
| 18 | 33.4 | 3.7 | 15.2 | 1.3 | 14.7 | 2.6 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 3.2 | 1.8 |
| Old group | ||||||||||||
| 41 | 17.8 | 3.1 | 6.2 | 2.5 | 14.3 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | −0.3 | 1.5 |
| 42 | 18.4 | 2.7 | 6.6 | 2.4 | 15.2 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | −1.2 | 1.1 |
| 44 | 20.6 | 2.8 | 7.0 | 3.0 | 10.8 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 2.8 |
| 48 | 18.2 | 3.4 | 8.1 | 3.3 | 10.4 | 4.4 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 2.1 |
| 52 | 8.3 | 4.1 | 13.4 | 4.8 | 14.1 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
Statistical analysis of the effect of experimental period (in the young and the old group) and real age (in the combined data) for the dimensional measurements.
| Variable | Young | Old | Combined | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANOVA | Linear regression | ANOVA | Linear regression | ANOVA | Linear regression | ||||
| CorrCoef | R2 | CorrCoef | R2 | CorrCoef | R2 | ||||
| Mean crown | 0.366 | 0.185 | 0.03 | 0.002 | 0.645 | 0.42 | 0.000 | 0.867 | 0.75 |
| Height | |||||||||
| Mean dentin | |||||||||
| Cusp | 0.618 | 0.103 | 0.01 | 0.000 | 0.817 | 0.67 | 0.000 | 0.738 | 0.51 |
| Mean dentin | |||||||||
| Fissure | 0.300 | 0.212 | 0.05 | 0.056 | 0.424 | 0.18 | 0.308 | 0.092 | 0.01 |
| Mean | |||||||||
| Predentin cusp | 0.762 | 0.062 | 0.00 | 0.910 | 0.026 | 0.00 | 0.641 | 0.042 | 0.00 |
| Mean | |||||||||
| Predentin fissure | 0.787 | 0.056 | 0.00 | 0.646 | 0.107 | 0.01 | 0.000 | 0.504 | 0.25 |
| Mean height pulpal horn | 0.829 | 0.045 | 0.00 | 0.420 | 0.186 | 0.04 | 0.000 | 0.416 | 0.17 |
Notes.
Correlation coefficient
Figure 4Scatter plots of the combined measurement data from the animals from the young and the old group.
Linear regression s lines and 95% CI are given.