| Literature DB >> 35051091 |
Kittidaj Tanongpitchayes1,2,3, Chamnan Randorn4, Suphatchaya Lamkhao4, Komsanti Chokethawai5, Gobwute Rujijanagul5, Kannika Na Lampang6, Luddawon Somrup2, Chavalit Boonyapakorn2,7,8, Kriangkrai Thongkorn2,3,7,8.
Abstract
Pathological mandibular fracture after dental extraction usually occurs in dogs with moderate to severe periodontitis. A nanohydroxyapatite-based hydrogel (HAP hydrogel) was developed to diminish the limitations of hydroxyapatite for post-extraction socket preservation (PSP). However, the effect of the HAP hydrogel in dogs has still not been widely investigated. Moreover, there are few studies on PSP in dogs suffering from clinical periodontitis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the HAP hydrogel for PSP in dogs with periodontitis. In five dogs with periodontitis, the first molar (309 and 409) of each hemimandible was extracted. Consequently, all the ten sockets were filled with HAP-hydrogel. Intraoral radiography was performed on the day of operation and 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks post operation. The Kruskal-Wallis test and paired t-test were adopted for alveolar bone regeneration analysis. The results demonstrated that the radiographic grading, bone height measurement, and bone regeneration analysis were positively significant at all follow-up times compared to the day of operation. Moreover, the scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy imaging after immersion showed a homogeneous distribution of apatite formation on the hydrogel surface. Our investigation suggested that the HAP hydrogel effectively enhances socket regeneration in dogs with periodontitis and can be applied as a bone substitute for PSP in veterinary dentistry.Entities:
Keywords: alveolar bone regeneration; dogs; hydrogel; nanohydroxyapatite; periodontitis; veterinary dentistry; veterinary periodontology
Year: 2021 PMID: 35051091 PMCID: PMC8777875 DOI: 10.3390/vetsci9010007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Sci ISSN: 2306-7381
Figure 1Steps for nanohydroxyapatite-based hydrogel (HAP hydrogel) placement in alveolar socket. (A) An open dental extraction technique was performed on the unilateral mandibular first molar tooth (309 or 409). (B) Post-extraction sockets of the mesial root and distal root were noted as tested sockets for post-extraction preservation. (C) Each post-extraction socket was filled with HAP hydrogel. (D) Mucoperiosteal flaps were used for the purpose of closing sockets after HAP hydrogel placement.
Figure 2Characteristics of surgical site margin of post-extraction sockets in four grades (Criteria A).
Figure 3Characteristics of alveolar bone formation of post-extraction sockets in four grades (Criteria B).
Figure 4Intra-oral radiograph schematic with reference lines for bone height measurement in post-extraction socket using Vet Exam program.
Signalments including age, sex, breed, body weight, periodontal stages and concurrent diseases of five dogs.
| Age (Years) | 11 (8–15) |
| Sex | 4 Male, 1 Female |
| (2 intact male, 2 neuter male, 1 neuter female) | |
| Breeds | Poodle (2/5) |
| Shih Tzu (1/5) | |
| Pomeranian (1/5) | |
| Chihuahua (1/5) | |
| Body weight | 4.2 (3.55–9.8) |
| Periodontal stages | Grade 1 (0/5) |
| Grade 2 (0/5) | |
| Grade 3 (2/5) | |
| Grade 4 (3/5) | |
| Concurrent Diseases | Hepatobiliary problem (1/5) |
| Myxomatous mitral valve degeneration (1/5) | |
| Unremarkable (3/5) |
Data are presented as median (range) or total number values.
Figure 5The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of nanohydroxyapatite-based hydrogel before and after immersion with simulated body fluid (SBF) for 14 days. (A) The image shows the distribution of hydroxyapatite composition within hydrogel. (B) The image shows new apatite formation at day 14 of SBF immersion.
Figure 6The scanning electron microscopy images (SEM) with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) mapping analysis, which were used to evaluate the distribution of hydroxyapatite-based hydrogel before (A) and after immersion (B) with simulated body fluid (SBF) for 14 days.
Figure 7Intraoral radiographs of first mandibular molar socket after nanohydroxyapatite-based hydrogel placement in different weeks of postoperative follow-up including the day of operation (A), 2nd week (B), 4th week (C), 8th week (D), 12th week (E) after operation.
Figure 8The number of sockets following characteristics of surgical site margin (a) and characteristic of new alveolar bone formation (b) in each week of follow-up are represented with bar plots. An asterisk on top of a bar indicates a statistically significant difference at a p-value of 0.05.
Comparison of radiographs following changes in lamina dura around socket (Criteria A) and characteristic of new alveolar bone formation following changes in radiodensity within socket (Criteria B) between the day of operation and 2nd, 4th, 8th and 12th postoperative weeks.
| Follow-Up Weeks | ||
|---|---|---|
| Criteria A | Criteria B | |
| Week 2 | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Week 4 | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Week 8 | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Week 12 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
The mean and standard deviation of new alveolar bone height (Av.Bh) and alveolar bone intensity (Av.Bi) of post-extraction socket preservation in 2nd, 4th, 8th and 12th weeks.
| Parameter | 2nd Weeks | 4th Weeks | 8th Weeks | 12th Weeks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Av.Bh (mm) | 3.61 ± 1.47 | 4.14 ± 1.06 | 4.90 ± 1.51 | 5.92 ± 2.30 |
| Av.BI | 81.68 ± 12.70 | 85.91 ± 10.83 | 91.74 ± 5.63 | 94.77 ± 6.41 |
AvBh. Units of mm, data are presented as mean ± SD.
Figure 9Comparison of alveolar bone regeneration parameters including new alveolar bone height (a) and alveolar bone intensity (b) among the day of operation and 2nd (WK2), 4th (WK4), 8th (WK8) and 12th weeks (WK12) after operation. An asterisk and two asterisks on top of a bar indicate a statistically significant difference at a p-value of 0.05 and a p-value of 0.01, respectively.