| Literature DB >> 29082254 |
Barbara Buffoli1,2, Gaia Favero1, Elisa Borsani1,2, Ramon Boninsegna1,3, Guido Sancassani4,5, Mauro Labanca1, Rita Rezzani1,2, Pier Francesco Nocini5, Massimo Albanese5, Luigi Fabrizio Rodella1,2.
Abstract
Surgical techniques in dental and maxillofacial surgery request fast bone tissue regeneration, so there is a significant need to improve therapy for bone regeneration. Several studies have recently underlined the importance of nucleotides and nucleosides to increase cell proliferation and activity; in particular, the ability of polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) to induce growth and activity of human osteoblasts was demonstrated. Sodium-DNA is the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) extracted from the gonadic tissue of male sturgeon and then purified, depolymerized, and neutralized with sodium hydroxide. To date, there are no evidences about the use of Sodium-DNA for bone tissue regeneration. Consequently, our question is about the efficacy of Sodium-DNA in bone healing. For testing the role of Sodium-DNA in bone healing we used a rat calvarial defect model. Sodium-DNA at different concentrations used alone or in association with Fibrin and/or Bio-Oss was used for healing treatments and the bone healing process was evaluated by histomorphometric and immunohistochemical analyses. Our results suggested a positive effect of Sodium-DNA in bone regeneration, providing a useful protocol and a model for the future clinical evaluation of its osteogenic properties.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29082254 PMCID: PMC5610838 DOI: 10.1155/2017/7320953
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1A–G: Masson-Goldner Trichrome at 60 days (up: low-magnification images; down: high-magnification images). New bone. B: Bio-Oss; n-MT: nonmineralized tissue. Below: quantitative analysis of percentage of new bone formation (% NB) at 30 days (gray) and 60 days (black). P < 0.05 versus Control (Group I) 30 days; P < 0.05 versus Control (Group I) 60 days; °P < 0.05 versus 30 days into each group; ∧P < 0.05 versus all other groups.
Figure 2A–G: RUNX2 immunohistochemistry at 30 days. H: high resolution detail. Below: quantitative analysis of percentage of RUNX2 immunostaining at 30 days (gray) and 60 days (black). P < 0.05 versus Control (Group I), Bio-Oss (Group IIIA), and Bio-Oss + DNA-Na (Group VA); °P < 0.05 versus 30 days into each group.
Figure 3A–G: OCG3 immunohistochemistry at 60 days. H: high resolution detail. Below: quantitative analysis of percentage of OCG3 immunostaining at 30 days (gray) and 60 days (black). P < 0.05 versus Control (Group I) 30 days; P < 0.05 versus Control (Group I) 60 days; °P < 0.05 versus 30 days into each group; ∧P < 0.05 versus all other groups.
Figure 4A–G: OPN immunohistochemistry at 30 days. H: high resolution detail. Below: quantitative analysis of percentage of OPN immunostaining at 30 days (gray) and 60 days (black). P < 0.05 versus Control (Group I) 30 days; P < 0.05 versus Control (Group I) 60 days; °P < 0.05 versus 30 days into each group.