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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Möhlhenrich, Stephan Christian, Kniha, Kristian, Magnuska, Zuzanna, Chhatwani, Sachin, Hermanns-Sachweh, Benita, Gremse, Felix, Hölzle, Frank, Danesh, Gholamreza, Modabber, Ali
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