4.6 Article

Angiogenic activity of an enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and EMD-derived proteins: an experimental study in mice

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 3, Pages 253-260

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01656.x

Keywords

amelogenin; angiogenesis; enamel matrix proteins; fibroblast growth factor; periodontal regeneration; vascular endothelial growth factor

Funding

  1. ITI
  2. Institut Straumann AG
  3. ITI Foundation, Basel, Switzerland [506-2007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Objectives To determine whether all or only certain proteins in an enamel matrix derivative (EMD) are angiogenic. Materials and Methods The angiogenic effect was analysed using an in vivo angiogenesis assay. Silicon tubes were filled with or without potential and known angiogenic-modulating factors: (i) an EMD parent, (ii) nine pools of EMD proteins, (iii) fibroblast growth factor/vascular endothelial growth factor and (iv) amelogenin. Silicon tubes were implanted subcutaneously in mice. Dextran-fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) was injected via the tail vein, mice were euthanized and tubes were retrieved. Neovascularization was determined by measuring the amount of dextran-FITC within the tubes. Results The greatest angiogenic potential of the EMD parent was at a weight of 125 ng, resulting in a 4.3-fold increase compared with the negative control. Five pools of EMD proteins showed a stronger angiogenic activity than the EMD parent. Pool 5 showed the greatest angiogenic activity, when compared with the negative control (8.1-fold increase) and with 125 ng of the EMD parent (4.2-fold increase). Amelogenin demonstrated a significantly higher angiogenic activity than the negative control (increase up to 4.0-fold) and the EMD parent (increase up to 1.6-fold). Conclusions EMD parent, recombinant porcine amelogenin and certain pools of EMD proteins induced significant angiogenesis compared with the controls using a standardized in vivo assay.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available