Cargando…
Development of root resorption during orthodontic tooth movement after cleft repair using different grafting materials in rats
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of three grafting materials for cleft repair on orthodontic tooth movement in rats. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Artificial alveolar clefts were created in 21 Wistar rats and were repaired 4 weeks later using autografts, human xenogr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9474460/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35567639 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04537-3 |
_version_ | 1784789721690406912 |
---|---|
author | Möhlhenrich, Stephan Christian Kniha, Kristian Magnuska, Zuzanna Chhatwani, Sachin Hermanns-Sachweh, Benita Gremse, Felix Hölzle, Frank Danesh, Gholamreza Modabber, Ali |
author_facet | Möhlhenrich, Stephan Christian Kniha, Kristian Magnuska, Zuzanna Chhatwani, Sachin Hermanns-Sachweh, Benita Gremse, Felix Hölzle, Frank Danesh, Gholamreza Modabber, Ali |
author_sort | Möhlhenrich, Stephan Christian |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of three grafting materials for cleft repair on orthodontic tooth movement in rats. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Artificial alveolar clefts were created in 21 Wistar rats and were repaired 4 weeks later using autografts, human xenografts and synthetic bone substitute (beta-tricalcium phosphate/hydroxyapatite [β-TCP/HA]). A further 4 weeks later, the first molar was moved into the reconstructed maxilla. Microfocus computed tomography (μCT) was performed six times (T0–T5) to assess the tooth movement and root resorption. After 8 weeks, the affected reconstructed jaw was resected for histopathological investigation. RESULTS: Total distances reached ranged from 0.82 ± 0.72 mm (β-TCP/HA) to 0.67 ± 0.27 mm (autograft). The resorption was particularly determined at the mesiobuccal root. Descriptive tooth movement slowed and root resorption increased slightly. However, neither the radiological changes during tooth movement (µCT T1 vs. µCT T5: autograft 1.85 ± 0.39 mm(3) vs. 2.38 ± 0.35 mm(3), p = 0.30; human xenograft 1.75 ± 0.45 mm(3) vs. 2.17 ± 0.26 mm(3), p = 0.54; β-TCP/HA: 1.52 ± 0.42 mm(3) vs. 1.88 ± 0.41 mm(3), p = 0.60) nor the histological differences after tooth movement (human xenograft: 0.078 ± 0.05 mm(2); β-TCP/HA: 0.067 ± 0.049 mm(2); autograft: 0.048 ± 0.015 mm(2)) were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The autografts, human xenografts or synthetic bone substitute used for cleft repair seem to have a similar effect on the subsequent orthodontic tooth movement and the associated root resorptions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Development of root resorptions seems to have a secondary role in choosing a suitable grafting material for cleft repair. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00784-022-04537-3. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9474460 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94744602022-09-16 Development of root resorption during orthodontic tooth movement after cleft repair using different grafting materials in rats Möhlhenrich, Stephan Christian Kniha, Kristian Magnuska, Zuzanna Chhatwani, Sachin Hermanns-Sachweh, Benita Gremse, Felix Hölzle, Frank Danesh, Gholamreza Modabber, Ali Clin Oral Investig Original Article OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of three grafting materials for cleft repair on orthodontic tooth movement in rats. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Artificial alveolar clefts were created in 21 Wistar rats and were repaired 4 weeks later using autografts, human xenografts and synthetic bone substitute (beta-tricalcium phosphate/hydroxyapatite [β-TCP/HA]). A further 4 weeks later, the first molar was moved into the reconstructed maxilla. Microfocus computed tomography (μCT) was performed six times (T0–T5) to assess the tooth movement and root resorption. After 8 weeks, the affected reconstructed jaw was resected for histopathological investigation. RESULTS: Total distances reached ranged from 0.82 ± 0.72 mm (β-TCP/HA) to 0.67 ± 0.27 mm (autograft). The resorption was particularly determined at the mesiobuccal root. Descriptive tooth movement slowed and root resorption increased slightly. However, neither the radiological changes during tooth movement (µCT T1 vs. µCT T5: autograft 1.85 ± 0.39 mm(3) vs. 2.38 ± 0.35 mm(3), p = 0.30; human xenograft 1.75 ± 0.45 mm(3) vs. 2.17 ± 0.26 mm(3), p = 0.54; β-TCP/HA: 1.52 ± 0.42 mm(3) vs. 1.88 ± 0.41 mm(3), p = 0.60) nor the histological differences after tooth movement (human xenograft: 0.078 ± 0.05 mm(2); β-TCP/HA: 0.067 ± 0.049 mm(2); autograft: 0.048 ± 0.015 mm(2)) were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The autografts, human xenografts or synthetic bone substitute used for cleft repair seem to have a similar effect on the subsequent orthodontic tooth movement and the associated root resorptions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Development of root resorptions seems to have a secondary role in choosing a suitable grafting material for cleft repair. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00784-022-04537-3. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-05-14 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9474460/ /pubmed/35567639 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04537-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Möhlhenrich, Stephan Christian Kniha, Kristian Magnuska, Zuzanna Chhatwani, Sachin Hermanns-Sachweh, Benita Gremse, Felix Hölzle, Frank Danesh, Gholamreza Modabber, Ali Development of root resorption during orthodontic tooth movement after cleft repair using different grafting materials in rats |
title | Development of root resorption during orthodontic tooth movement after cleft repair using different grafting materials in rats |
title_full | Development of root resorption during orthodontic tooth movement after cleft repair using different grafting materials in rats |
title_fullStr | Development of root resorption during orthodontic tooth movement after cleft repair using different grafting materials in rats |
title_full_unstemmed | Development of root resorption during orthodontic tooth movement after cleft repair using different grafting materials in rats |
title_short | Development of root resorption during orthodontic tooth movement after cleft repair using different grafting materials in rats |
title_sort | development of root resorption during orthodontic tooth movement after cleft repair using different grafting materials in rats |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9474460/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35567639 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04537-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mohlhenrichstephanchristian developmentofrootresorptionduringorthodontictoothmovementaftercleftrepairusingdifferentgraftingmaterialsinrats AT knihakristian developmentofrootresorptionduringorthodontictoothmovementaftercleftrepairusingdifferentgraftingmaterialsinrats AT magnuskazuzanna developmentofrootresorptionduringorthodontictoothmovementaftercleftrepairusingdifferentgraftingmaterialsinrats AT chhatwanisachin developmentofrootresorptionduringorthodontictoothmovementaftercleftrepairusingdifferentgraftingmaterialsinrats AT hermannssachwehbenita developmentofrootresorptionduringorthodontictoothmovementaftercleftrepairusingdifferentgraftingmaterialsinrats AT gremsefelix developmentofrootresorptionduringorthodontictoothmovementaftercleftrepairusingdifferentgraftingmaterialsinrats AT holzlefrank developmentofrootresorptionduringorthodontictoothmovementaftercleftrepairusingdifferentgraftingmaterialsinrats AT daneshgholamreza developmentofrootresorptionduringorthodontictoothmovementaftercleftrepairusingdifferentgraftingmaterialsinrats AT modabberali developmentofrootresorptionduringorthodontictoothmovementaftercleftrepairusingdifferentgraftingmaterialsinrats |