4.1 Article

Inhibition of tooth movement by osteoprotegerin vs. pamidronate under conditions of constant orthodontic force

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES
Volume 115, Issue 2, Pages 131-136

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2007.00433.x

Keywords

orthodontics; osteoclasts; osteoprotegerin; resorption; tooth movement

Funding

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [DE-07378] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL &CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH [R01DE007378] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The undesired movement of anchor teeth, and relapse of previously moved teeth, are major clinical problems in orthodontics. Dental implants are increasingly used to preserve anchorage, but these are costly and require invasive surgical procedures. An alternative strategy for maintaining anchorage may be the use of biological inhibitors of osteoclastic bone resorption. In the present study, we investigated the relative efficacy of pamidronate vs. osteoprotegerin (OPG) in inhibiting bone resorption and tooth movement, using a new orthodontic model in mice in which maxillary molars are moved for prolonged periods by near-constant, clinically relevant forces. Osteoclast influx to compression sites was initiated on day 3, was maximal on day 4, and persisted until at least day 12 after force application. Tooth movement paralleled osteoclast numbers. Minimal osteoclast apoptosis was observed, suggesting that recruitment, rather than programmed cell death, is a critical regulatory mechanism under conditions of constant force. Osteoclasts were reduced at compression sites by both OPG (95%) and pamidronate (70%); tooth movement was more dramatically inhibited by OPG (77% vs. 34%). Our findings indicate that constant orthodontic force regulates the recruitment, activation, and viability of osteoclasts, and that OPG could have clinical utility in preventing undesired tooth movement.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available