Cargando…

Differential Efficacy of 2 Vibrating Orthodontic Devices to Alter the Cellular Response in Osteoblasts, Fibroblasts, and Osteoclasts

Modalities that increase the rate of tooth movement have received considerable attention, but direct comparisons between devices are rare. Here, we contrasted 2 mechanical vibratory devices designed to directly transfer vibrations into alveolar bone as a means to influence bone remodeling. To this e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Judex, Stefan, Pongkitwitoon, Suphannee
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207979/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30397398
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1559325818792112
_version_ 1783366625247887360
author Judex, Stefan
Pongkitwitoon, Suphannee
author_facet Judex, Stefan
Pongkitwitoon, Suphannee
author_sort Judex, Stefan
collection PubMed
description Modalities that increase the rate of tooth movement have received considerable attention, but direct comparisons between devices are rare. Here, we contrasted 2 mechanical vibratory devices designed to directly transfer vibrations into alveolar bone as a means to influence bone remodeling. To this end, 3 cells types intimately involved in modulating tooth movements—osteoblasts, periodontal ligament fibroblasts, and osteoclasts—were subjected to in vitro vibrations at bout durations prescribed by the manufacturers. As quantified by an accelerometer, vibration frequency and peak accelerations were 400% and 70% greater in the VPro5 (Propel Orthodontics) than in the AcceleDent (OrthoAccel Technologies) device. Both devices caused increased cell proliferation and gene expression in osteoblasts and fibroblasts, but the response to VPro5 treatment was greater than for the AcceleDent. In contrast, the ability to increase osteoclast activity was device independent. These data present an important first step in determining how specific cell types important for facilitating tooth movement respond to different vibration profiles. The device that engendered a higher vibration frequency and larger acceleration (VPro5) was superior in stimulating osteoblast and fibroblast cell proliferation/gene expression, although the duration of each treatment bout was 75% shorter than for the AcceleDent.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6207979
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62079792018-11-05 Differential Efficacy of 2 Vibrating Orthodontic Devices to Alter the Cellular Response in Osteoblasts, Fibroblasts, and Osteoclasts Judex, Stefan Pongkitwitoon, Suphannee Dose Response Biological Consequences of Exposure to Mechanical Vibration Modalities that increase the rate of tooth movement have received considerable attention, but direct comparisons between devices are rare. Here, we contrasted 2 mechanical vibratory devices designed to directly transfer vibrations into alveolar bone as a means to influence bone remodeling. To this end, 3 cells types intimately involved in modulating tooth movements—osteoblasts, periodontal ligament fibroblasts, and osteoclasts—were subjected to in vitro vibrations at bout durations prescribed by the manufacturers. As quantified by an accelerometer, vibration frequency and peak accelerations were 400% and 70% greater in the VPro5 (Propel Orthodontics) than in the AcceleDent (OrthoAccel Technologies) device. Both devices caused increased cell proliferation and gene expression in osteoblasts and fibroblasts, but the response to VPro5 treatment was greater than for the AcceleDent. In contrast, the ability to increase osteoclast activity was device independent. These data present an important first step in determining how specific cell types important for facilitating tooth movement respond to different vibration profiles. The device that engendered a higher vibration frequency and larger acceleration (VPro5) was superior in stimulating osteoblast and fibroblast cell proliferation/gene expression, although the duration of each treatment bout was 75% shorter than for the AcceleDent. SAGE Publications 2018-08-16 /pmc/articles/PMC6207979/ /pubmed/30397398 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1559325818792112 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Biological Consequences of Exposure to Mechanical Vibration
Judex, Stefan
Pongkitwitoon, Suphannee
Differential Efficacy of 2 Vibrating Orthodontic Devices to Alter the Cellular Response in Osteoblasts, Fibroblasts, and Osteoclasts
title Differential Efficacy of 2 Vibrating Orthodontic Devices to Alter the Cellular Response in Osteoblasts, Fibroblasts, and Osteoclasts
title_full Differential Efficacy of 2 Vibrating Orthodontic Devices to Alter the Cellular Response in Osteoblasts, Fibroblasts, and Osteoclasts
title_fullStr Differential Efficacy of 2 Vibrating Orthodontic Devices to Alter the Cellular Response in Osteoblasts, Fibroblasts, and Osteoclasts
title_full_unstemmed Differential Efficacy of 2 Vibrating Orthodontic Devices to Alter the Cellular Response in Osteoblasts, Fibroblasts, and Osteoclasts
title_short Differential Efficacy of 2 Vibrating Orthodontic Devices to Alter the Cellular Response in Osteoblasts, Fibroblasts, and Osteoclasts
title_sort differential efficacy of 2 vibrating orthodontic devices to alter the cellular response in osteoblasts, fibroblasts, and osteoclasts
topic Biological Consequences of Exposure to Mechanical Vibration
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207979/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30397398
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1559325818792112
work_keys_str_mv AT judexstefan differentialefficacyof2vibratingorthodonticdevicestoalterthecellularresponseinosteoblastsfibroblastsandosteoclasts
AT pongkitwitoonsuphannee differentialefficacyof2vibratingorthodonticdevicestoalterthecellularresponseinosteoblastsfibroblastsandosteoclasts