| Literature DB >> 30448850 |
Jianping Zhou1,2,3, Fengxue Yang1,2,3, Xiaolin Xu1,2,3, Gang Feng1,2,3, Jun Chen1,2,3, Jinglin Song1,4,3, Hongwei Dai1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to dynamically evaluate tooth movement, root resorption, and remodeling of alveolar bone using different forces to cause tooth movement in rats. MATERIAL AND METHODS 12-week-old male Sprague-Dawley rats were selected. Nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) coil springs (20 g, 50 g, and 100 g forces) were placed for mesial movement of the left first maxillary molar teeth. Tooth movement, root resorption, and microarchitectural parameters of the trabecular bone were evaluated by in vivo micro-CT. Histological examination was used to observe the root resorption, alveolar bone remodeling, and changes in osteoclasts from day 0 to day 14. RESULTS The tooth movement distance increased significantly over the initial 3 days in the 3 groups. The 20 g force group showed more tooth movement than in the 50 and 100 g force groups after 14 days (P<0.05). From days 7 to 10, root resorption lacunae appeared in the 3 groups and then stabilized, and the 100 g force group produced more lacunar resorption than in the anther 2 groups (P<0.05). Compared to day 0, the trabecular thickness and bone volume fraction on the pressure side gradually decreased from day 7 to day 14. The structure model index increased significantly from day 3 to day 14. Histological examination showed remarkable root resorption craters and osteoclasts positive for tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase in the root resorption lacunae in the 50 g and 100 g groups from day 7 to day 14. CONCLUSIONS A 100 g heavy force can be used to establish a root resorption model in rats.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30448850 PMCID: PMC6253985 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.912470
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Figure 1Tooth movement model. Tooth movement model: the Ni-Ti spring was ligated between left first maxillary molar and incisor with 20 g, 50 g, and 100 g of force delivered.
Figure 2A selected trabecular bone cube. The selected trabecular bone cube: The cubes (700×700×700 μm) of trabecular bone on the mesial side of the apical third of the distal buccal root of the maxillary first molar was selected for analysis. (A) Sagittal, (B) Horizontal.
Tooth movement by different magnitudes of force (mm), (χ̄±s).
| Time (days) | Tooth movement distance (mm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 g | 50 g | 100 g | |
| 0 days | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 days | 0.064±0.008 | 0.045±0.017 | 0.076±0.009 |
| 7 days | 0.128±0.034 | 0.056±0.011 | 0.090±0.004 |
| 10 days | 0.181±0.039 | 0.059±0.011 | 0.110±0.008 |
| 14 days | 0.237±0.045 | 0.079±0.027 | 0.134±0.014 |
Significant difference compared with 20 g group (P<0.05);
Significant difference compared with 50 g group (P<0.05).
Figure 3Tooth movement and root resorption crater volume by different magnitudes of force. Tooth movement distance and root resorption crater volume by different magnitudes of force. (A) Tooth movement distance in 20 g, 50 g and 100 g groups from day 0 to day 14; (B) Root resorption crater volume in 20 g, 50 g, and 100 g groups from day 0 to day 14; (C) The 3D reconstructed root resorption lacuna in 20 g, 50 g, and 100 g groups from day 0 to day 14. (* Significant difference compared with 20 g group, P<0.05; # Significant difference compared with 50 g group, P<0.05).
Root resorption crater volume by different magnitudes of force (×107 μm3), (χ̄±s).
| Time (days) | Root resorption crater volume (×107 μm3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 g | 50 g | 100 g | |
| 0 days | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 days | 0.3680±0.1582 | 0.4732±0.2104 | 0.5798±0.2611 |
| 7 days | 0.9948±0.2137 | 1.3709±0.3410 | 2.0892±0.4112 |
| 10 days | 1.7765±0.2997 | 2.1219±0.4626 | 2.9268±0.3894 |
| 14 days | 1.8915±0.2342 | 2.3732±0.4190 | 3.3896±0.6266 |
Significant difference compared with 20 g group (P<0.05);
Significant difference compared with 50 g group (P<0.05).
Figure 4Alveolar trabecular bone microstructural properties by different magnitudes of force. Alveolar trabecular bone microstructural properties by different magnitudes of force. (A) Bone volume fraction; (B) Structure model index; (C) Trabecular number; (D) Trabecular thickness; (E) Trabecular separation; (F) The 3D reconstructed alveolar trabecular bone in 20 g, 50 g, and 100 g groups from day 0 to day 14. (* Significant difference compared with day 0 in 20 g group, P<0.05; # Significant difference compared with day 0 in 50 g group, P<0.05; @ Significant difference compared with day 0 in 100 g group, P<0.05).
Figure 5H-E staining and TRAP staining on day 7. Histological examination. (A–C) H-E staining on day 7. (D–F) TRAP staining on day 7. (AL – alveolar bone; PL – periodontal ligand; R – root; Green arrow: root resorption, Blue arrow: alveolar resorption, Red arrow: TRAP-positive osteoclasts). Original magnification 400×.