4.6 Article

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ plays dual roles on experimental periodontitis in rats

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 45, 期 5, 页码 514-523

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12891

关键词

alveolar bone remodelling; inflammation; periodontitis; peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81670976]
  2. Bureau of Science and Technology of Wuhan [[2014]160]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To investigate the effects of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) on inflammation control and bone remodelling in experimental periodontitis in rats. Materials and methods: Experimental periodontitis was induced in rats by thread ligation around cervixes of mandibular first molars. PPAR agonist, antagonist and vehicle were intraperitoneally administrated, respectively, into rats. Ninety-six male SD rats were randomly divided into control, ligation+vehicle, ligation+agonist and ligation+antagonist groups. After 1, 4 and 8weeks, alveolar bone loss was assessed by Micro-CT and HE staining. Inflammation and bone metabolism factors were evaluated by ELISA and immunohistochemical examination. Osteoclasts were quantified by tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) staining. Results: Alveolar bone loss was significantly reduced after 1week, while significantly increased after 8weeks in agonist group, but antagonist group showed the opposite trend. Agonist decreased some inflammatory cytokines expression after 1 and 4 weeks, downregulated OPG, RUNX2, BMP-2 and upregulated RANKL after 8 weeks, but antagonist brought the opposite effect. PPAR agonist significantly reduced osteoclast counting after 1 week, while increased it after 8weeks. Conclusions: During periodontitis progression, PPAR could inhibit inflammation, prevent bone resorption within a short time, while the long-term PPAR activation would lead to increased bone resorption, and PPAR repression by antagonist would enhance alveolar bone formation.

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

4.6
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