4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

The nanostructure of murine alveolar bone and its changes due to type 2 diabetes

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY
卷 196, 期 2, 页码 223-231

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsb.2016.09.007

关键词

Alveolar bone; Diabetes; X-ray scattering; Synchrotron radiation; Mouse model; Biomineralization; Mechanobiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alveolar bone - the bony ridge containing the tooth sockets - stands out by its remodeling activity where bone is being formed and resorbed at a much higher rate than in any other bony tissue. Teeth that are anchored in the jaw through the periodontal ligament exert very large localized loads during mastication that could lead to a unique adaptation of the collagen/mineral structure in the bone. Our aim was to characterize the nanostructure of alveolar bone and to determine the influence of diabetes on structural characteristics of the mineralized matrix. Using small- and wide-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS/WAXS), we studied a spontaneous diabetic mouse model (KK+) and its corresponding healthy controls (KK) (n = 6) to determine the size and mutual alignment of the mineral nanoparticles embedded in the collagen matrix. On cross-sections (buccal-lingual) of the first molar multiple line scans with a spatial resolution of 30 mu m were performed on each sample, from the lingual to the buccal side of the mandible. Mineral particle thickness and length are decreasing towards the tooth in both buccal and lingual sides of alveolar bone. While mineral particles are well aligned with the long axis of the tooth on the buccal side, they are in a quarter of the measurements oriented along two preferred directions on the lingual side. These nanostructural differences can be interpreted as the result of an asymmetric loading during mastication, leading to a tilting of the tooth in its socket. In diabetic mice particle thicknesses are smaller compared to control animals. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据