4.1 Article

Inflammatory cell and cytokine patterns in patients with chronic polyarthritis and temporomandibular joint involvement

期刊

ACTA ODONTOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 64, 期 4, 页码 221-226

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00016350600573183

关键词

cytokines; inflammation; monoclonal antibodies; synovial biopsies; temporomandibular joint

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To investigate the occurrence of selected markers for inflammatory cells and cytokines in patients with chronic polyarthritis (CPA) and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) involvement. Material and Methods. Eleven patients ( 11 joints) with CPA and TMJ disorder were included in the study. Synovial specimens were obtained during TMJ open surgery and these were subjected to immunohistochemistry on frozen sections post-fixed with paraformaldehyde and with the cell membranes permeabilized by saponin. In all patients, the cytokines IL-1 alpha, IL-1 beta, IL-1ra, TNF alpha, IFN gamma, IL2, and TGF beta were investigated using specific antibodies. The occurrence of macrophages and T-lymphocytes was investigated using immunohistochemistry with monoclonal antibodies against antigens CD68 and CD45RO, respectively. In addition, PCNA was used as a marker for cell proliferation. Results. Staining of IL-1 alpha, IL-1, and TGF was seen in all 11 specimens, IFN? in 1, TNF alpha in 4, and IL-2 in none. CD45RO-positive T cells were detected in 7 specimens, CD68-positive macrophages in 6, and cell proliferation seen with PCNA was noted in 8. Conclusions. The predominant cytokines of TMJ CPA were IL1 alpha, IL-1 beta, and TGF beta, and there appeared to be no differences between the subgroups ( rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis) involved. Moreover, the cytokine pattern of TMJ CPA patients seemed to differ from patients with osteoarthritis, as shown in our previous study. The main difference was the absence of IFN beta and TNF alpha in TMJ CPA patients and a stronger TGFb and IL-1 alpha expression.

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

4.1
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