Ethanol binge drinking exposure affects alveolar bone quality and aggravates bone loss in experimentally-induced periodontitis.

BACKGROUND: Periodontitis is a multifactorial inflammatory disease of tooth supporting tissues caused by oral biofilms, influenced by environmental and genetic factors, among others. Ethanol consumption has been considered a factor that enhances alveolar bone loss, especially in high doses. The present study aims to investigate the changes promoted by ethanol binge drinking per se or associated with ligature-induced periodontal breakdown on alveolar bone loss.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two Wistar rats were randomly allocated into four groups: control (C), ethanol (3g/kg/day; 3 days On-4 days Off protocol by gavage for 28 days, EtOH), experimental periodontitis (EP) and experimental periodontitis plus ethanol administration (EP+EtOH). On day 14th, periodontitis was induced by ligatures that were placed around the lower first molars. On day 28th, the animals were euthanized and mandibles were submitted to stereomicroscopy for exposed root area analysis and micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) for the evaluation of alveolar bone loss and microstructural parameters.
RESULTS: The results revealed that ligature-induced alveolar bone loss is aggravated by ethanol binge drinking compared to controls (1.06 ± 0.10 vs 0.77 ± 0.04; p<0.0001). In addition, binge drinking per se altered the alveolar bone quality and density demonstrating a reduction in trabecular thickness, trabecular number parameter and bone density percentual. Periodontal disorder plus ethanol binge drinking group also demonstrated reduction of the quality of bone measured by trabecular thickness.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, intense and episodic ethanol intake decreased alveolar bone quality in all microstructural parameters analyzed which may be considered a modifying factor of periodontitis, intensifying the already installed disease.

Introduction

Periodontitis is a multifactorial inflammatory disease, which affects the tooth supporting tissues (i.e., periodontal ligament, cementum, and alveolar bone). Periodontal destruction has been observed among 60–70% of the global population. As a multifactorial disease, 20% of the clinical findings of periodontitis are related to oral biofilms, however, the other 80% are linked to behavioral, environmental and genetic factors, which can modify periodontitis progression. In addition, immunological host response plays a pivotal role in prognosis of periodontally diseased individuals [1, 2].

Some medical conditions, smoking, and social history are described as disease modifiers. They seem to act altering the expression of periodontal disease. However, the exact role of systemic diseases and exposure to different risk indicators in initiating or modifying the progress of the periodontal disease is complex and not fully understood. Diabetes and smoking are the know true risk factors for periodontal disease. Diabetes is characterized as a progressive factor if the glycemic levels are above ideal [3].

Another factor, classified as behavioral, is smoking, which is associated with increased alveolar bone loss. As smoking is often related to alcohol consumption, the toxicological effects caused by ethanol have been related as possible alveolar bone loss intensified by its consumption [4]. Limited studies have linked alcohol consumption and periodontitis [5-7], however, evidence suggests that the relationship exists with several gaps on the exact interaction between alcohol and periodontitis [5, 8]. In the relationship between alcohol exposure and occurrence and progression of periodontitis, a J-curve has been proposed, in which low doses tend to be associated with lower progression and high doses with a more aggressive pattern of progression. Our group has been working on the association between alcohol intake and oral health consequences in animal models both on a heavy alcohol exposure paradigm [9, 10] and with binge drinking-type protocol [11].

Ethanol harmful effects in the oral cavity seem to be proportional to the alcohol-exposure pattern [7, 12, 13]. Enzymatic induction, immune modifier, as well as cementum formation and osteoblast activity reduction have been suggested to alcohol-related oral cavity health disorders [8, 10].

In addition, binge drinking pattern has been reported as the principal type of ethanol exposure among adolescents and adults [14]. Such “social behavior”, characterized by large amounts of alcohol in a short period of time, provokes overspread damages in several organs and tissues, and is not restricted to the central nervous system or liver [15]. The exact pathogenic mechanism that underlies ethanol harmful effects has been extensively investigated, however, it has been postulated that inflammatory and oxidative damage are two important pathways on the alcohol-related tissue damage [16]. Both ethanol pathological via that was described above are shared by periodontitis [17]. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of binge drinking on alveolar bone loss in Wistar rats. We hypothesize that prolonged binge drinking exposure is associated with the development of spontaneous periodontitis. Our second hypothesis relies on ethanol exposure increasing the impairment caused by ligature-induced periodontitis.

Material and methods

Animals

Wistar rats (90 days-old; n = 32), obtained from animal facility (Federal University of Pará), were randomly allocated to cages (n = 4), with controlled food (NUVITAL®, 3 pellets/animal) and water ad libitum. A 12 h light/dark cycle (lights on 7 AM) and temperature control (25±1°C) was used. All procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee on Experimental Animals of the UFPA (under number 6896071217), according to NIH Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals recommendations.

Experimental procedures

Fig 1 describes the study protocol. Animals were divided into 4 groups. In the control group (C, G1), animals received distilled water. Ethanol group (EtOH, G2) received ethanol binge drinking protocol characterized by 30% w/v ingestion in 4 sections of 3 consecutive days On-4 days Off protocol by gavage [18]. On the 14th day of experiment, the animals from experimental periodontitis group (EP, G3) and experimental periodontitis + ethanol group (EP + EtOH, G4) were submitted to intraperitoneal anesthesia [xylazine 2% (2mg/ml) plus ketamine 10% (10mg/ml)] and the ligature-induced periodontitis was installed by insertion of cotton ligatures (Coats Corrente, São Paulo, SP, Brazil) around the cervical regions of the first inferior molars, which was maintained until euthanasia, as previously described [19]. Ligatures were maintained for 14 days [19, 20]. Following the ethanol binge drinking protocol, animals were euthanized by intraperitoneal anesthesia [xylazine 2% (2mg/ml) plus ketamine 10% (10mg/ml)] followed by cervical dislocation, and jaws were collected. The right hemimandibules were maintained in physiologic serum (NaCl 0.9%) under the refrigerator for stereomicroscopic analyses. The left hemimandibules were maintained in formol solution 4% for micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) evaluation.

Fig 1

Sample description and experimental steps.

Stereomicroscopic analyses

The right hemimandibles from each animal (n = 8, each group) were examined by a stereomicroscope (Discovery V8 Zeiss, Germany). The samples were immersed in 10% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) for three hours and then they were washed in an ultrasonic bath with distilled water for 2 minutes. To make a better differentiation of the cementum-enamel junction (CEJ), the hemimandibles were immersed in 1% methylene blue for 60 seconds. After they dry at room temperature, the samples were fixed with wax n° 9 (Lysanda, Vila Prudente, São Paulo, Brazil) on individual glass slides with the lingual face of the teeth perpendicular to the axis of observation. The pictures were obtained with a 6.1-megapixel camera (Cannon, Powershot A640) coupled with the stereomicroscope (30.0X). Then, the measurement of the exposed root area (ERA) was made through these images, captured with an adequate scale, from the lingual face of the first molar.

Bodyweight evaluation

For bodyweight measurement, all animals were weighted weekly.

Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) analysis

Animals left hemimandibules were submitted to micro-CT (MicroCT.SMX-90 CT; Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto, Japan). Images were captured under a rotation of 360°, with an intensity of 70kV and 100 mA. After this, images were reconstituted by inspeXio SMX-90CT software (Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto, Japan), with a voxel size of 10 μm and resolution of 1024x1024 which resulted in 541 images per sample. Bone loss was evaluated in height by RadiAnt DICOM Viewer 5.0.1 (Medixant, Poznan, Poland) where the 3D reconstruction of the hemimandibulas was performed. The tridimensional models were placed on a standard position (Fig 1), where the vestibular and lingual tooth face could be observed. Thus, the vertical bone loss was detected through the measurement of the distance between the cementum-enamel junction and the alveolar bone crest at six points of the first inferior molar, (i.e., mesio-buccal, buccal, distobuccal, disto-lingual, lingual and mesio-lingual) [21], performing the average of these regions.

To verify the alveolar bone tissue quality, the ImageJ® (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA) software was used on a set of 70 images from the inferior first molar alveolar bone region. The interradicular region, close to the furcation area, from the inferior first molar, including the cervical third until the middle third of the root (average area of 0.160mm2), was chosen as the standardized region of interest (Fig 1).

The threshold (0–70) was applied to the segmentation of the different scores of gray color present in the image. The plug-in BoneJ (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA) was used to evaluated the trabecular number (Tb.N), trabecular thickness (Tb.Th), trabecular separation (Tb.Sp), and the percentual of bone density (%BV/TV).

Statistical analyses

Animals number samples per group were obtained by G*Power software (Statistical Power Analyses 3.1.9.2). Data distribution normality was analyzed by Shapiro-Wilk test. Statistical analyses were performed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey test. Bodyweight data was evaluated by repeated measure two-way ANOVA. Student t test was performed to compare two specific groups. All results were expressed as mean ± standard derivation (SD). Statistical differences were adopted when p<0.05. GraphPad Prism 6.0. software (GraphPad, San Diego, CA, USA) was employed for statistical analyses.

Results

Bodyweight evaluation

Mean body weight did not reveal statistically significant differences among groups. (control: 246.1 ± 6.29; ethanol: 230.6 ± 3.45; ligature-induced periodontitis: 238 ± 1.98; ligature-induced periodontitis + ethanol: 254.8 ± 3.87; p = 0.97).

Stereomicroscopic analysis

Exposed root area (ERA)

The stereomicroscopic analyses showed that ethanol binge drinking exposure did not increase the ERA compared to animals that were not exposed to ethanol (2.05 ± 0.08 vs 1.94 ± 0.08; p = 0.90). However, the animals from the EP + EtOH group presented a higher area of exposed root in comparation to ethanol per se protocol (2.88 ± 0.21 vs 2.05 ± 0.08; p = 0.0005) and controls (2.88 ± 0.21 vs 1.94 ± 0.08; p = 0.0002). The graphic representation of the stereomicroscopic analysis is shown on Fig 2.

Fig 2

Exposed root area in mm2 in all experimental groups.

(A) Results are expressed as mean ± standard error of the number of exposed root area. On the right, representative photomicrographs of hemi-mandibles of the (C) Control group; (EtOH) Ethanol binge drinking group; (EP) Experimental periodontitis group and (EP + EtOH) Experimental periodontitis and Ethanol group. EP+EtOH group presented the highest ERA identified among the groups. Same letters indicate no significant differences between groups (P < 0.05, ANOVA followed by Tukey post hoc test). Scale bar: 0.5mm.

Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) analysis

Alveolar bone loss

3D hemimandible analyses show that four ethanol binge drinking exposure did not display additional alveolar bone loss as compared to animals that were not exposed to ethanol protocol (0.82 ± 0.08mm vs 0.77 ± 0.04mm; p = 0.49). However, animals submitted to binge drinking protocol plus experimental periodontitis presented an increase in alveolar bone loss compared to ethanol per se protocol (0.82 ± 0.08mm vs 1.06 ± 0.10mm; p = 0.0001), as well as experimental periodontitis (1.06 ± 0.10mm vs 0.92 ± 0.03mm; p = 0.003) and control (1.06 ± 0.10mm vs 0.77 ± 0.04mm; p<0.0001) (Fig 3).

Fig 3

Cementum-enamel junction to alveolar bone crest (CEJ-ABC) distance (mm) in all experimental groups.

(A) Results are expressed as mean ± standard error of the distance of cementum-enamel junction to alveolar bone crest in mm. On the right panel, there is the 3D reconstruction of hemi-mandibles of the (C) Control group; (EtOH) Ethanol binge drinking group; (EP) Experimental periodontitis group and (EP + EtOH) Experimental periodontitis and Ethanol group. EP+EtOH group presented the highest alveolar bone loss identified by the greatest measure of the ACJ-ABC distance. Same letters indicate no significant differences between groups (P < 0.05, ANOVA followed by Tukey post hoc test).

Alveolar bone quality and bone density

Control group (C) presented the higher trabecular thickness parameter (Tb.Th) values (0.15 ± 0.02mm). Interestingly, four binge drinking exposure in ethanol group showed reduction in Tb.Th even in the absence of experimental-induced periodontitis (p = 0.0468). In experimental periodontitis group (EP) as well as in experimental periodontitis + ethanol (EP + EtOH) a decrease in Tb.Th parameter was observed compared to control and ethanol groups (p<0.0001). However, they were similar indicating that ethanol exposure per se promoted Tb.Th reduction and it was not intensified by experimental periodontitis induction.

In addition to Tb.Th, trabecular number parameter (Tb.N) was also evaluated. Similarly to Tb.Th data, Tb.N was reduced in Ethanol group compared to control (p = 0.0041) and when experimental periodontitis was induced a decrease in bone quality was also detected (i.e., ligature-induced periodontitis and ligature-induced periodontitis plus ethanol binge drinking groups; p<0.0001). In fact, no differences were observed between experimental periodontitis versus experimental periodontitis plus ethanol exposure groups (p = 0.8188), which is in accordance with Tb.Th evaluation, that reflects no synergistic pathological effects in this parameter.

Percent bone density (%BV/TV) was reduced solely in the ethanol binge drinking animals when compared to control group (p = 0.0411). Experimental periodontitis per se did not affect bone density. The graphic representation of all quality and density parameters are shown on Fig 4.

Fig 4

Results from the Micro-CT quality analysis.

(A) Region of interest (ROI) used for evaluation. (B) Trabecular thickness parameter (Tb.Th) in all experimental groups. (C) Trabecular number parameter (Tb.N). For these results, same letters indicate no significant differences between groups (P < 0.05, ANOVA followed by Tukey post hoc test). (D) Bone density (%) parameter (BV/TV) obtained by micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). (*) indicates significant difference between the groups (p < 0.05).

Discussion

The present study aimed to investigate the effects of intermittent and episodic ethanol exposure in mandibular alveolar bone accompanied or not by experimental-induced periodontitis in rats. Our findings showed, for the first time, that intermittent and episodic ethanol exposure per se did not increase alveolar bone loss, however, the bone quality was altered in all parameters evaluated. In addition, experimentally induced periodontitis aggravated the alveolar bone loss and trabecular thickness when ethanol intake was associated.

Different protocols have tested the effect of ethanol exposure on periodontal diseases in animal models with distinct results [6, 7, 10, 13, 22, 23]. The idea behind such studies comes from the demonstrated association between alcohol consumption, especially in high doses, with periodontal diseases in populational studies even in a longitudinal approach [6]. The studies performed in animals help in the understanding of the biological plausibility of the encountered associations in populations. Our group has investigated the effects of ethanol exposure on the stomatognathic system, both in chronic as well as in a binge drinking protocol [9-11]. In alveolar bone, our previous data demonstrated that chronic heavy ethanol exposure (6.5g/kg/day) from adolescence till adulthood led to increased alveolar bone loss, even in the absence of experimentally-induced periodontitis [10]. Contradictorily, other study reported that different ethanol concentrations consumed for 8 weeks did not increase alveolar bone loss, however, in the presence of ligature-induced periodontitis, alveolar bone loss was higher than in the control group [23].

In the present investigation, we verified that intense and sporadic alcohol intake promoted changes in quality and density of alveolar bone alone and in association with ligature-induced periodontitis. The 3 days On- 4 days-Off ethanol (3g/kg/day) protocol has been tested in animal model, the results demonstrated that it is a valid way to simulate binge drinking [24-26]. Binge drinking protocol has been widely used for investigation related to bone tissue alterations provoked by alcohol intake in a rat model. It has been described that alcohol exposure displayed a disordered expression of genes that play a pivotal role in bone remodeling [27]. In another study, bone resorption under orthodontic treatment was intensified by binge pattern exposure [28]. In addition, reduced bone mineral density and changes in the number of bone tissue biomarkers, such as receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa-Β ligand (RANKL) and osteoprotegerin (OPG), has been attributed to ethanol intake [29]. However, it is not well established the effects of binge drinking on the vertical alveolar bone loss, as well as on the alveolar bone quality in adult rats. Besides, we investigated if ethanol exposure interferes on alveolar bone loss and quality displayed by ligature-induced periodontal disease.

In order to verify the effects of binge drinking on the vertical alveolar bone loss, as well as on the alveolar bone quality micro-CT was employed [30-33]. Micro-CT has become the gold standard for bone tissue morphology and microstructure analysis in small animal models, such as rats and mice, as it enables high-definition three-dimensional reconstruction of samples and evaluate both cortical and trabecular bone [34]. Firstly, our data revealed that 3 days On- 4 days Off ethanol exposure protocol did not increase vertical alveolar bone loss. The previous study of our group demonstrated that daily administered heavy ethanol exposure from adolescence till adulthood increased alveolar bone loss [10]. These findings suggest that the harmful effects of ethanol exposure on alveolar bone loss, as well as other body tissues, depends on the period of life, as well as the duration of exposure and amount of consumption. In addition to binge drinking exposure, on the 14th day of ethanol exposure, we submitted animals from two groups to ligature-induced periodontitis. Animals that received the associated protocol (ligature-induced periodontitis + binge drinking) presented higher alveolar bone loss compared to the others that were submitted to experimental periodontitis and ethanol exposure protocols. These data suggest that prolonged ethanol exposure may aggravate alveolar bone loss on the presence of periodontal disorder. These results could be explained by the fact that alcohol exposure promotes oxidative damage and pro-inflammatory effects affecting bone homeostasis, accelerating bone resorption process as well as inhibiting bone formation [35-37]. Additionally, recent studies have shown that bone density is reduced by heavy ethanol consumption, with osteocalcin decrease and RANK / OPG ratio increase [8, 22, 35].

Although increased alveolar bone loss was not observed in the group that was solely exposed to ethanol, the alveolar bone quality was negatively altered by binge drinking. In fact, trabecular thickness, trabecular number, and percent bone density was affected by ethanol-exposed animals. A recent study reported that trabecular structures (i.e., thickness and number) were reduced in sub-chronic ethanol consumption protocol [38], which supports our findings. Likewise, it is well established that ethanol consumption displays oxidative unbalance and pro-inflammatory processes [39].

Another very interesting finding of our study is the fact that that ethanol exposure associated with experimental periodontitis aggravated alveolar bone loss and also disrupted bone quality indicators. Similar to ethanol consumption, periodontitis is also related to oxidative imbalance [40, 41]. We suggest that the pathological mechanisms shared by both isolated harmful stimuli, such as ethanol exposure and experimental periodontal disease, may provoke negative synergistic effects, intensifying alveolar bone tissue damage. Alcohol has been studied as a modifying factor of periodontal disease. In humans, a systematic review shows that several studies demonstrated an association between ethanol consumption and dependence with periodontitis. Although the heterogeneity between the articles is high, differing in the method of sample selection, alcohol consumption and alcohol use, periodontal indices and statistical analysis, the trend clearly demonstrates a detrimental effect [42]. Regarding the limits in translational researches, our results using pre-clinical animal model corroborate the idea that alcohol could negatively impact the pathogenesis of periodontitis. One possible explanation for that, is that the increase of C-reactive protein levels, as well as decrease of neutrophil chemotaxis and phagocytosis elicited by ethanol exposure may predispose to infection by periodontal bacteria [6]. In addition, TNF-α and IL-6 levels are higher in alcohol users [29], which might be equally in crevicular fluid, being related to the presence of periodontitis [6]. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that alcohol modulates bone cell activities in a dose-dependent manner. Thus, ethanol exposure causes an imbalance of the OPG / RANK / RANKL system, implicating in reduced osteoblast activity and osteoclastogenesis improvement [8, 10, 36], which consists of processes that also occurs during periodontitis development [43].

Conclusion

It may be concluded that the intense and episodic ethanol intake (“binge pattern”) promoted decrease in quality of alveolar bone in all parameters analyzed. In addition, we demonstrated that experimentally-induced periodontitis was aggravated binge drinking-like alcohol exposure, qualitatively and quantitatively. Thus, alcohol exposure is possibly related to the modification of the progression periodontitis, intensifying bone tissue damage.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

21 May 2020

PONE-D-20-02327

Ethanol binge drinking exposure affects alveolar bone quality and aggravates bone loss in experimentally-induced periodontitis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Lima,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jul 05 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Timothy Damron

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, please provide methods of sacrifice in the Methods section of your manuscript

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"The authors are grateful to the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Programa Nacional de Cooperação Acadêmica na Amazônia—PROCAD/Amazônia da Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Brazilian Federal  Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES- finance code 001), Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa e Pós- Graduação PROPESP-UFPA."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to

publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript by Frazão and colleagues explores the potential role of ethanol consumption on alveolar bone loss. The study focused on the use of a rats to investigate whether ethanol exposure per se was sufficient to induce dental changes. It is an interesting and important question, and the group used a standard, well-accepted method for inducing periodontal tissue breakdown by placing ligatures around the molars. Four experimental groups were described: a “control” group, an ethanol exposure group in which rats are given ethanol for 3 days then off for 4, for a total of 28 days; another group that received ethanol and ligatures, and a fourth group that has ligatures and ethanol exposure as well.

If I understand the experimental groups correctly, those in G1 are not exposed to ethanol (the control group). Animals in G2 are exposed to ethanol (“Ethanol group (EtOH, G2) received ethanol binge drinking protocol characterized by 30% w/v ingestion…”). Animals in the G3 and G4 groups were also exposed to ethanol for 14 days (“On the 14th day of ethanol exposure protocol, animals from experimental periodontitis (G3) group and experimental periodontitis + ethanol (G4) group were submitted to… ligature-induced periodontal disease by insertion of cotton ligatures”). Consequently, there is no group that received ligatures to induce periodontitis) but did not receive ethanol. Therein lies my major concern with this work: without this group, it is impossible to separate the effects of the ligatures from the effects of ethanol exposure. Consequently, the data do not support the conclusion made by the authors, that binge-drinking decreases alveolar bone quality. (I would prefer that a measurable value be substituted since “bone quality” is a vague and non-quantitative descriptor). Other questions and concerns are outlined below, but in its current form the data do not support the conclusions drawn.

Animals in G4, which had both received ligatures and were exposed to ethanol presented a higher area of exposed root in comparation to “ethanol per se protocol and controls”. I don’t understand this result. If I go by the figure, the dark purple bar representing the G4 group is higher than the light purple G1 bar e.g., there is greater root exposure in G4 compared to G1 but that is easily understood by the fact that there is a ligature in the G4 group; it is expected that the ligature causes gingival recession.

The results in Figure 3 are described as follows: “animals submitted to binge drinking protocol plus experimental periodontitis presented an increase in alveolar bone loss compared to ethanol per se protocol.” The appropriate control, however, is the group that had ligatures but no ethanol exposure; this group does not exist, as far as I can tell.

In Figure 4, it appears that G3 and G4 exhibit an equivalent e.g., non-significant difference in BV/TV, trabecular number, and trabecular thickness. If I understand the groups correctly, that means that whether the animal is exposed to ethanol or not, the effect on alveolar bone loss is equivalent. Thus, I cannot see how

Reviewer #2: Dear Author, congratulations on a well designed study. It is well written and well performed. However, I am missing some more parameters from this study. Since you already did microCT, I think it would be benefical for this study to measure the distance between the cemento-enamel junction and the alveolar bone crest (CEJ-AC) at 6 different points (mesio-buccal, buccal, distobuccal, disto-lingual, lingual and mesio-lingual), noy just the four points that you have chosen, particular when you see the large different in alveolar bone promixal and distal. Please see Virto L, , et al. Melatonin expression in periodontitis and obesity: An experimental in-vivo investigation. J Periodont Res. 2018;53:825–831. on how to do it. It does not take long time, and would give you valuable information on the bone loss similar to how you would evaluated with a periodontal probe in the clinic. It would be beneficial for this study to include histology

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Jun 2020

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your dedication to revise our manuscript. In this document are the answers to the comments made by reviewers 1 and 2. The answers are described in detail and everything that has been changed in the manuscript is described here.

Referee: 1

1. “[…] Four experimental groups were described: a “control” group, an ethanol exposure group in which rats are given ethanol for 3 days then off for 4, for a total of 28 days; another group that received ethanol and ligatures, and a fourth group that has ligatures and ethanol exposure as well. If I understand the experimental groups correctly, those in G1 are not exposed to ethanol (the control group). Animals in G2 are exposed to ethanol (“Ethanol group (EtOH, G2) received ethanol binge drinking protocol characterized by 30% w/v ingestion…”). Animals in the G3 and G4 groups were also exposed to ethanol for 14 days (“On the 14th day of ethanol exposure protocol, animals from experimental periodontitis (G3) group and experimental periodontitis + ethanol (G4) group were submitted to… ligature-induced periodontal disease by insertion of cotton ligatures”). Consequently, there is no group that received ligatures to induce periodontitis) but did not receive ethanol […]”

Answer:

We apologize for the misunderstanding about that information. We noticed that it was not very clear in the text that the Experimental Periodontitis (EP, G3) group of this work was only submitted to ligature, but without receiving ethanol, receiving distilled water instead, as described in Figure 1. We have already modified this information in the manuscript to increase understanding. Group 2 and group 3 were submitted to separate exposures: one just received ethanol (G2) and the other received induction of experimental periodontitis, without ethanol exposure (G3). Thus, G2 and G3 represent the groups that were exposed to the challenges separately, while Group 4 represents the group that received both challenges (ethanol and ligature-experimental periodontitis) simultaneously.

2. “Animals in G4, which had both received ligatures and were exposed to ethanol presented a higher area of exposed root in comparation to “ethanol per se protocol and controls”. I don’t understand this result. If I go by the figure, the dark purple bar representing the G4 group is higher than the light purple G1 bar e.g., there is greater root exposure in G4 compared to G1 but that is easily understood by the fact that there is a ligature in the G4 group; it is expected that the ligature causes gingival recession.”

Answer:

We understand your question and the opportunity to clarify it. When the G4 (EP + EtOH) is compared with G2 (EtOH), we observe a statistically significant difference, that leads us to understand that ethanol per se did not cause an increase in the exposed root area, but when associated with experimental periodontitis, i.e, when there is a synergistic effect of the two exposures, demonstrated by the increased area. This analysis by stereomicroscope is complementary to the evaluation of alveolar bone loss in height by micro-CT, since it shows us not only how much bone was lost in height, but the root area left exposed due to the process of periodontal breakdown.

3. “The results in Figure 3 are described as follows: “animals submitted to binge drinking protocol plus experimental periodontitis presented an increase in alveolar bone loss compared to ethanol per se protocol.” The appropriate control, however, is the group that had ligatures but no ethanol exposure; this group does not exist, as far as I can tell.”

Answer:

In fact, this group exists, it is group 3, which only underwent to ligature-induced periodontitis without exposure to ethanol. As shown in the graph, in figure 3, and in the text, on lines 137-140, there was a significant difference between group 3 and group 4, showing that when associating periodontitis with ethanol, there was a greater bone loss in height compared to only experimental periodontitis induction.

4. “In Figure 4, it appears that G3 and G4 exhibit an equivalent e.g., non-significant difference in BV/TV, trabecular number, and trabecular thickness. If I understand the groups correctly, that means that whether the animal is exposed to ethanol or not, the effect on alveolar bone loss is equivalent. Thus, I cannot see how.”

Answer:

We understand your question. The data shows that the EtOH (G2) group presented a greater loss of trabecular thickness, trabecular number, and BV/TV compared to the control group. However, the groups with experimental periodontitis (G3 and G4) had a much greater loss compared to G1 and G2, but that was not significantly different from each other. This leads us to believe that because of periodontitis, the microstructural parameters were much more affected compared to the damage caused only by ethanol, which can be explained by the increased inflammation in groups with periodontitis.

Referee: 2

1. “Dear Author, congratulations on a well designed study. It is well written and well performed. However, I am missing some more parameters from this study. Since you already did microCT, I think it would be benefical for this study to measure the distance between the cemento-enamel junction and the alveolar bone crest (CEJ-AC) at 6 different points (mesio-buccal, buccal, distobuccal, disto-lingual, lingual and mesio-lingual), noy just the four points that you have chosen, particular when you see the large different in alveolar bone promixal and distal. Please see Virto L, , et al. Melatonin expression in periodontitis and obesity: An experimental in-vivo investigation. J Periodont Res. 2018;53:825–831. on how to do it. It does not take long time, and would give you valuable information on the bone loss similar to how you would evaluated with a periodontal probe in the clinic. It would be beneficial for this study to include histology”

Answer:

Thank you for your contribution and evaluation of the manuscript. We already evaluated the alveolar bone loss in the micro-CT at 6 points, as described in the lines 95-98 of the article. However, to facilitate understanding, the name of the points used for the evaluation was modified according to the suggested reference (mesio-buccal, buccal, distobuccal, disto-lingual, lingual, and mesio-lingual).

Regarding the histological evaluation, for this work (the first with binge drinking paradigm) we tried to make a diagnostic analysis of this additional exposure pattern. We appreciate the suggestion and intend to use it for future work to evaluate the mechanisms of damage to alveolar bone associated with ethanol binge drinking consumption and experimental periodontitis.

Finally, we would like to thank you for the meaningful contributions and acknowledge that they have contributed substantially to improve the impact of our manuscript. We hope that the changes implemented and the answers provided are enough for the recommendation of the publication of our study in Plos One.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

1 Jul 2020

Ethanol binge drinking exposure affects alveolar bone quality and aggravates bone loss in experimentally-induced periodontitis

PONE-D-20-02327R1

Dear Dr. Lima,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Timothy Damron

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: no more comments need for this round and I hereby accept the manuscript for publication. Thank you for address the comments made

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

20 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-02327R1

Ethanol binge drinking exposure affects alveolar bone quality and aggravates bone loss in experimentally-induced periodontitis

Dear Dr. Lima:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Timothy Damron

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE