Periodontal tissue regeneration after low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound stimulation with or without intra‐marrow perforation in two‐wall intra‐bony defects—A pilot study in dogs

Shirakata, Yoshinori; Imafuji, Takatomo; Sena, Kotaro; Shinohara, Yukiya; Nakamura, Toshiaki; Noguchi, Kazuyuki

doi:10.1111/jcpe.13197

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology frontiersin.org histomorphology revealed increased osteogenesis on the tension side, suggesting that LIPUS promotes the osteogenic differentiation of PDLCs or BMSCs; this is consistent with other published studies (Shirakata et al, 2020;Shobara et al, 2021). Of most interest was the observation that the lateral bone cortex on the pressure side was thickened and compensatory osteogenesis was increased; this is of significance for maintaining the thickness of the pressure side alveolar bone in orthodontic treatment, and is consistent with a previous report (Arai et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound regulates osteoblast-osteoclast crosstalk via EphrinB2/EphB4 signaling for orthodontic alveolar bone remodeling

Zhou

Zhu

et al. 2023

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The limited regenerative potential of periodontal tissue remains a challenge in orthodontic treatment, especially with respect to alveolar bone remodeling. The dynamic balance between the bone formation of osteoblasts and the bone resorption of osteoclasts controls bone homeostasis. The osteogenic effect of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) is widely accepted, so LIPUS is expected to be a promising method for alveolar bone regeneration. Osteogenesis is regulated by the acoustic mechanical effect of LIPUS, while the cellular perception, transduction mode and response regulation mechanism of LIPUS stimuli are still unclear. This study aimed to explore the effects of LIPUS on osteogenesis by osteoblast-osteoclast crosstalk and the underlying regulation mechanism.Methods: The effects of LIPUS on orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) and alveolar bone remodeling were investigated via rat model by histomorphological analysis. Mouse bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) and bone marrow monocytes (BMMs) were purified and used as BMSC-derived osteoblasts and BMM-derived osteoclasts, respectively. The osteoblast-osteoclast co-culture system was used to evaluate the effect of LIPUS on cell differentiation and intercellular crosstalk by Alkaline phosphatase (ALP), Alizarin Red S (ARS), tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) staining, real-time quantitative PCR, western blotting and immunofluorescence.Results: LIPUS was found to improve OTM and alveolar bone remodeling in vivo, promote differentiation and EphB4 expression in BMSC-derived osteoblasts in vitro, particularly when cells were directly co-cultured with BMM-derived osteoclasts. LIPUS enhanced EphrinB2/EphB4 interaction between osteoblasts and osteoclasts in alveolar bone, activated the EphB4 receptor on osteoblasts membrane, transduced LIPUS-related mechanical signals to the intracellular cytoskeleton, and gave rise to the nuclear translocation of YAP in Hippo signaling pathway, thus regulating cell migration and osteogenic differentiation.Conclusions: This study shows that LIPUS modulates bone homeostasis by osteoblast-osteoclast crosstalk via EphrinB2/EphB4 signaling, which benefits the balance between OTM and alveolar bone remodeling.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound regulates osteoblast-osteoclast crosstalk via EphrinB2/EphB4 signaling for orthodontic alveolar bone remodeling

Zhou

Zhu

et al. 2023

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…dimension as effectively as other ARP treatments (0.81-1.53 mm; Imber et al, 2021;Shirakata et al, 2010Shirakata et al, , 2020. In the horizontal dimension, no significant differences were found in alveolar width at different levels (1 mm, 3 mm, 6 mm blow alveolar ridge) between MDM and C groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…In vertical dimension, the VHBD in MDM‐6 m group (1.55 mm) was about 1.19 mm smaller than that in C‐6 m group (2.74 mm). It suggested that MDM might reduce the bone reduction in vertical dimension as effectively as other ARP treatments (0.81–1.53 mm; Imber et al., 2021; Shirakata et al., 2010, 2020). In the horizontal dimension, no significant differences were found in alveolar width at different levels (1 mm, 3 mm, 6 mm blow alveolar ridge) between MDM and C groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alveolar ridge preservation of two‐wall bone defects using mineralized dentin matrix: An experimental pre‐clinical study

Yan,

Wang,

Han

et al. 2024

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo study bone healing of two‐wall bone defects after alveolar ridge preservation using mineralized dentin matrix.Materials and MethodsAfter distal roots extraction of second and fourth premolars (P2, P4) on one lateral mandible in 12 beagles, two‐wall bone defects (5 × 5 × 5 mm) were surgically created distally to the remaining mesial roots of P2 and P4. A total of 24 sites were randomly allocated to three groups (implant material‐ time of execution): mineralized dentin matrix (MDM)‐3 m (MDM + collagen membrane; 3 months), MDM‐6 m (MDM particles + collagen membrane; 6 months), and C‐6 m (collagen membrane only; 6 months). Clinical, radiographic, digital, and histological examinations were performed 3 and 6 months after surgery.ResultsThe bone healing in MDM groups were better compared to Control group (volume of bone regenerated in total: 25.12 mm3 vs. 13.30 mm3, p = .046; trabecular volume/total volume: 58.84% vs. 39.18%, p = .001; new bone formation rate: 44.13% vs. 31.88%, p = .047). Vertically, the radiological bone level of bone defect in MDM‐6 m group was higher than that in C‐6 m group (vertical height of bone defect: 1.55 mm vs. 2.74 mm, p = .018). Horizontally, no significant differences in buccolingual bone width were found between MDM and C groups at any time or at any level below the alveolar ridge. The percentages of remaining MDM were <1% in both MDM‐3 m and MDM‐6 m groups.ConclusionsMDM improved bone healing of two‐wall bone defects and might be considered as a socket fill material used following tooth extraction.

show abstract

“…The treated root canal was sealed with a dental sealing material (IRM; Dentsply Sirona, Milford, DE, USA). An alveolar defect (5×5×5 mm) was surgically created on the extracted sites of each premolar according to previous studies [ 20 21 ] ( Figure 2A and B ). After creation of the alveolar defect, the flap was sutured with 4-0 Vicryl (Ethicon Inc., Somerville, NJ, USA).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of regeneration after the application of 2 types of deproteinized bovine bone mineral to alveolar bone defects in adult dogs

Lee

Kim

et al. 2022

J Periodontal Implant Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the preclinical results of 2 types of commercially available deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) when applied to alveolar bone defects in dogs. Methods This study was conducted using 6 beagles. Alveolar defects in the mandible were formed and filled with 2 DBBMs produced by a similar procedure. Defects were randomly assigned to be filled using DBBM 1 or 2. All defects were covered with a collagen membrane and had a healing period of 12 weeks. After the dogs were sacrificed, histological, histomorphometric, and linear/volumetric analyses were performed. Results Both DBBM groups showed similar histological findings, demonstrating that bone remodeling had occurred and new bone had formed. The residual bone particles were surrounded by newly formed vital bone. In the histomorphometric analysis, the ratio of the area of vital bone and residual bone substitute in DBBM 2 (38.18% and 3.47%, respectively) was higher than that of DBBM 1 (33.74% and 3.41%, respectively), although the difference was not statistically significant. There were also no statistically significant differences between both groups in linear and volumetric analyses using micro-computed tomography scans and digitized images of dental casts. Conclusions In the present study, DBBM 1and 2, which were produced by similar processes, showed similar results in histological, histomorphometric, and volumetric analyses. Further studies are needed to identify more specific differences between the 2 DBBMs.

show abstract

Periodontal tissue regeneration after low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound stimulation with or without intra‐marrow perforation in two‐wall intra‐bony defects—A pilot study in dogs

Cited by 7 publications

References 50 publications

Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound regulates osteoblast-osteoclast crosstalk via EphrinB2/EphB4 signaling for orthodontic alveolar bone remodeling

Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound regulates osteoblast-osteoclast crosstalk via EphrinB2/EphB4 signaling for orthodontic alveolar bone remodeling

Alveolar ridge preservation of two‐wall bone defects using mineralized dentin matrix: An experimental pre‐clinical study

Evaluation of regeneration after the application of 2 types of deproteinized bovine bone mineral to alveolar bone defects in adult dogs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About