4.3 Article

Impact of bisphosphonate drug burden in alveolar bone during orthodontic tooth movement in a rat model: A pilot study

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.06.015

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the effect of long-term bisphosphonate drug use (bone burden) on orthodontic tooth movement in a rat model. Methods: Sprague Dawley rats were used for orthodontic protraction of the maxillary first molars with nickel-titanium coil springs and temporary anchorage devices as anchorage. Four groups of 5 rats each were included in the study; the first 2 groups were dosed with alendronate or a vehicle during concurrent orthodontic tooth movement. The third and fourth groups were pretreated for 3 months with alendronate or vehicle injections, and bisphosphonate drug treatment was discontinued before orthodontic tooth movement. Tooth movement measurements were obtained at 0, 4, and 8 weeks using high-resolution in-vivo microcomputed tomography, and the tissues were analyzed with histology and dynamic labeling of bone turnover. Results: Appreciable tooth movement was achieved during the 8-week duration of this study with nickel-titanium coil springs and temporary anchorage devices. Both bisphosphonate treatment groups exhibited reduced tooth movement compared with the vehicle-dosed controls with a tendency toward more severe reduction in the bisphosphonate predosed group. Concurrent dosing of the bisphosphonate drug resulted in 56% and 65% reductions in tooth protraction at the 4-week and 8-week times, respectively. The impact of bisphosphonate bone burden in retarding tooth movement was even greater, with 77% and 86% reductions in tooth movement at 4 and 8 weeks, respectively. Conclusions: In this study, we used a robust rat model of orthodontic tooth movement with temporary anchorage devices. It has provided evidence that the bone burden of previous bisphosphonate use will significantly inhibit orthodontic tooth movement.

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

4.3
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