Gabriel Ramalho-Ferreira1, Leonardo Perez Faverani1, Gustavo Antonio Correa Momesso2, Eloá Rodrigues Luvizuto1, Igor de Oliveira Puttini1, Roberta Okamoto1,3. 1. Department of Surgery and Integrated Clinic, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Aracatuba Dental School, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Rua José Bonifácio, 1193, CEP 16015-050, Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Department of Surgery and Integrated Clinic, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Aracatuba Dental School, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Rua José Bonifácio, 1193, CEP 16015-050, Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil. gustavomomesso@gmail.com. 3. Department of Basic Sciences, Aracatuba Dental School, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the alendronate and raloxifene influence in the alveolar healing process of osteoporotic rats. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four female rats were divided in four groups: sham rats (SHAM), ovariectomized rats and no medical treatment (OVX NT), ovariectomized rats and submitted to alendronate treatment (OVX ALE), and ovariectomized and submitted to raloxifene treatment (OVX RAL). The histomorphometrical and immunohistochemical analysis was performed. The quantitative data were analyzed through Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: In the longest period, SHAM and OVX RAL groups showed the better bone formation responses (P < 0.05). The worst bone formation response was observed in the group OVX NT. OVX RAL group showed the better response at 42 days. OVX ALE group showed a favorable response at 14 days, in comparison with OVX RAL group, but a reduced response at 42 days. It was possible to observe a mature bone in SHAM group at 14 days and an immature bone in the OVX NT group. An intermediate quality bone was observed in the groups OVX ALE and OVX RAL. CONCLUSION: Alendronate and raloxifene treatment improved the alveolar healing process in osteoporotic rats, but not enough to achieve the histometrical and protein expression values that were observed in the SHAM group. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Alendronate is largely used as a potent antiresorptive agent. Otherwise, considering the undesirable effects in relation to the alveolar healing, other antiosteoporosis medications should be studied. Raloxifene seems to be a good candidate once its action mechanism involves the activation of osteoblasts.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the alendronate and raloxifene influence in the alveolar healing process of osteoporoticrats. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four female rats were divided in four groups: sham rats (SHAM), ovariectomized rats and no medical treatment (OVX NT), ovariectomized rats and submitted to alendronate treatment (OVX ALE), and ovariectomized and submitted to raloxifene treatment (OVX RAL). The histomorphometrical and immunohistochemical analysis was performed. The quantitative data were analyzed through Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: In the longest period, SHAM and OVX RAL groups showed the better bone formation responses (P < 0.05). The worst bone formation response was observed in the group OVX NT. OVX RAL group showed the better response at 42 days. OVX ALE group showed a favorable response at 14 days, in comparison with OVX RAL group, but a reduced response at 42 days. It was possible to observe a mature bone in SHAM group at 14 days and an immature bone in the OVX NT group. An intermediate quality bone was observed in the groups OVX ALE and OVX RAL. CONCLUSION:Alendronate and raloxifene treatment improved the alveolar healing process in osteoporoticrats, but not enough to achieve the histometrical and protein expression values that were observed in the SHAM group. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Alendronate is largely used as a potent antiresorptive agent. Otherwise, considering the undesirable effects in relation to the alveolar healing, other antiosteoporosis medications should be studied. Raloxifene seems to be a good candidate once its action mechanism involves the activation of osteoblasts.
Authors: W S Simonet; D L Lacey; C R Dunstan; M Kelley; M S Chang; R Lüthy; H Q Nguyen; S Wooden; L Bennett; T Boone; G Shimamoto; M DeRose; R Elliott; A Colombero; H L Tan; G Trail; J Sullivan; E Davy; N Bucay; L Renshaw-Gegg; T M Hughes; D Hill; W Pattison; P Campbell; S Sander; G Van; J Tarpley; P Derby; R Lee; W J Boyle Journal: Cell Date: 1997-04-18 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: B Ettinger; D M Black; B H Mitlak; R K Knickerbocker; T Nickelsen; H K Genant; C Christiansen; P D Delmas; J R Zanchetta; J Stakkestad; C C Glüer; K Krueger; F J Cohen; S Eckert; K E Ensrud; L V Avioli; P Lips; S R Cummings Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-08-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gustavo Grossi-Oliveira; Leonardo P Faverani; Bruno Coelho Mendes; Tárik Ocon Braga Polo; Gabriel Cury Batista Mendes; Valthierre Nunes de Lima; Paulo Domingos Ribeiro Júnior; Roberta Okamoto; Osvaldo Magro-Filho Journal: Int J Biomater Date: 2020-05-23
Authors: Ana Paula Farnezi Bassi; Vinícius Ferreira Bizelli; Leticia Freitas de Mendes Brasil; Járede Carvalho Pereira; Hesham Mohammed Al-Sharani; Gustavo Antonio Correa Momesso; Leonardo P Faverani; Flavia de Almeida Lucas Journal: Membranes (Basel) Date: 2020-09-12