4.6 Article

A Mouse Model for Studying the Development of Apical Periodontitis with Age

Journal

CELLS
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells10030671

Keywords

apical periodontitis; immune system; aging

Categories

Funding

  1. Izador I. Cabakoff Research Endowment Fund
  2. Israel Ministry of Science and Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Young mice with apical periodontitis showed higher periapical cell density and more osteoclasts in the lesions, while the immune reaction in adult mice was attenuated compared to the young counterparts.
Older age is associated with reduced immune function. Our aim was to study how age affects the development of apical periodontitis (AP). AP was induced in two age groups of mice (young vs. adult). Histological samples were stained by Hematoxylin Eosin, Brown and Brenn, and Tartrate-Resistant Acid Phosphatase. In addition, the samples were scanned by Micro-Computerized-Tomography (micro-CT) to evaluate apical constriction and periapical lesion size. Cell density in the periapical region was computationally assessed. Moreover, lesion immune cell populations were characterized by flow cytometry and immunofluorescence. The young group presented more canals with necrotic radicular pulp compared to the adults. There was no difference in bacteria location in the canals between the groups. Apical constriction size was larger in the young mice compared to the adults. The periapical cell density was higher in the young group, while the dominant immune cells in the lesions were neutrophils, which also exhibited the highest young/adult ratio. Immunofluorescence demonstrated neutrophils in the lesion. More osteoclasts were present in the lesions of the young mice, in correlation to the higher volume of bone resorption in this group. Overall, we conclude that the immune reaction to AP stimuli was attenuated in the adult mice compared to the young.

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