| Literature DB >> 36091440 |
Yue Wang1,2,3, Qingyue Xiao1,2,3, Wenjie Zhong1,2,3, Chuangwei Zhang1,2,3, Yuanyuan Yin1,2,3, Xiang Gao1,2,3, Jinlin Song1,2,3.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the regeneration potential of periodontitis tissue treated by low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) combined with the guided tissue regeneration (GTR) technique in a beagle model of furcation involvement (FI). Background: Achieving predictable regeneration remains a clinical challenge for periodontitis tissue due to the compromised regenerative potential caused by chronic inflammation stimulation. LIPUS, an FDA-approved therapy for long bone fracture and non-unions, has been demonstrated effective in the in vitro attenuation of inflammation-induced dysfunction of periodontal ligament stem cells (PDLSCs), the key cells contributing to periodontal regeneration. However, the in vivo effect of LIPUS on periodontitis tissue is rarely reported.Entities:
Keywords: beagle dog; furcation involvement; inflammation; low-intensity pulsed ultrasound; regeneration
Year: 2022 PMID: 36091440 PMCID: PMC9458930 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.961898
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
FIGURE 1Beagle FI model establishment. (A) Modeling procedures: a. flap elevation, b. establishment of the “U”-shaped defect and stainless-steel ligature fastening, c. LIPUS treatment, and d. ultrasonic therapeutic device. (B) Postoperative radiographic observation. (C) Clinical assessment of BI, PD, and AL before and after the modeling procedure. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *p < 0.05. (D) SEM image of the PTFE membrane.
FIGURE 2Clinical periodontal parameters of different groups. BI (A), PD (B), and AL (C) of the control group, GTR group, and GTR+LIPUS group. Data are presented as mean ± SD.
FIGURE 3Histological and histomorphometric analyses. (A) Schematic illustration of histomorphometric measurements. N: notch; V: vertex of furcation; NC: new cementum; NC% = NC/NV×100%; NP: new periodontal ligament; NP% = NP/NV×100%; NBA: new bone area; DA: defect area; NBA% = NBA/DA×100%. (B) Representative H&E staining of the furcation area. The dotted lines indicate a new bone formation area. Scale bar, 400 μm. (C) Quantitative analysis of new cementum formation, periodontal ligament formation, and bone formation areas. Data are presented as mean ± SD, *p < 0.05.
FIGURE 4Histological assessment of inflammatory infiltration and neovascularization. (A) Lymphocyte infiltration of the control group, GTR group, and GTR+LIPUS group. Scale bar, 200 μm. (B) Inflammatory infiltration scores of different groups; *p < 0.05. (C) Blood vessels in the defect area are indicated by white arrows. Scale bar, 200 μm. (D) Neovascularization scores of different groups; *p < 0.05.
FIGURE 5Histological assessment of periodontal attachment. Masson’s trichrome staining of the control group, GTR group, and GTR+LIPUS group. Scale bar, 200 μm.