Correlations between radiological and histological findings of bone remodelling and root resorption in a rodent cleft model.
Bone substitutes
Cleft animal model
Histology
Micro-computed tomography
Quantitative bone morphometry
Rat
Root resorption
Journal
Head & face medicine
ISSN: 1746-160X
Titre abrégé: Head Face Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101245792
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Nov 2022
11 Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
20
07
2022
accepted:
03
10
2022
entrez:
11
11
2022
pubmed:
12
11
2022
medline:
15
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The evaluation of bone remodelling and dental root resorption can be performed by histological techniques or micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). The present study aimed to evaluate the relationship between these two procedures in the context of cleft repair in a rat model. The reconstructed maxillae and the orthodontically-moved first molar of 12 rats were analysed for correlations between the histological and radiological findings retrospectively. The alveolar cleft repairs were performed using bone autografts or (human) xenografts. Four weeks after the operation, the intervention of the first molar protraction was initiated and lasted for eight weeks. The newly formed bone and the root resorption lacunae were determined via histology. In the micro-CT analysis, the average change of bone mineral density (BMD), bone volume fraction (BV/TV), trabecular thickness and trabecular separation of the jaw, as well as the volume of the root resorptions were determined. The Pearson correlation coefficient was applied to study the associations between groups. Positive correlations were found only between the newly formed bone (histology) and BMD changes (micro-CT) in the autograft group (r = 0.812, 95% CI: 0.001 to 0.979, p = 0.05). The relationship of newly formed bone and BV/TV was similar but not statistically significant (r = 0.691, 95% CI: -0.274 to 0.963, p = 0.013). Regarding root resorption, no significant correlations were found. Due to the lack of correlation between histological and radiological findings of bone remodelling and the development of root resorptions, both methods should be combined in this cleft model in rats for a comprehensive analysis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The evaluation of bone remodelling and dental root resorption can be performed by histological techniques or micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). The present study aimed to evaluate the relationship between these two procedures in the context of cleft repair in a rat model.
METHODS
METHODS
The reconstructed maxillae and the orthodontically-moved first molar of 12 rats were analysed for correlations between the histological and radiological findings retrospectively. The alveolar cleft repairs were performed using bone autografts or (human) xenografts. Four weeks after the operation, the intervention of the first molar protraction was initiated and lasted for eight weeks. The newly formed bone and the root resorption lacunae were determined via histology. In the micro-CT analysis, the average change of bone mineral density (BMD), bone volume fraction (BV/TV), trabecular thickness and trabecular separation of the jaw, as well as the volume of the root resorptions were determined. The Pearson correlation coefficient was applied to study the associations between groups.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Positive correlations were found only between the newly formed bone (histology) and BMD changes (micro-CT) in the autograft group (r = 0.812, 95% CI: 0.001 to 0.979, p = 0.05). The relationship of newly formed bone and BV/TV was similar but not statistically significant (r = 0.691, 95% CI: -0.274 to 0.963, p = 0.013). Regarding root resorption, no significant correlations were found.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the lack of correlation between histological and radiological findings of bone remodelling and the development of root resorptions, both methods should be combined in this cleft model in rats for a comprehensive analysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36357936
doi: 10.1186/s13005-022-00338-x
pii: 10.1186/s13005-022-00338-x
pmc: PMC9650839
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
33Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Theranostics. 2016 Jan 01;6(3):328-41
pubmed: 26909109
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004 Sep 1;114(3):713-20
pubmed: 15318051
J Bone Miner Metab. 2011 Jul;29(4):442-8
pubmed: 21063738
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Jul;56(6):453-462
pubmed: 29859781
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Aug;67(8):1716-22
pubmed: 19615587
J Craniofac Surg. 2007 Jul;18(4):895-901
pubmed: 17667684
J Craniofac Surg. 2003 Nov;14(6):840-6
pubmed: 14600625
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016 Apr 1;61:1018-28
pubmed: 26838929
Clin Oral Investig. 2014 Jan;18(1):219-26
pubmed: 23430342
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017 Nov;54(6):687-698
pubmed: 28094562
Ann Anat. 2021 Jul;236:151713
pubmed: 33675947
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993 Nov;30(6):579-81
pubmed: 8280737
Bone. 2007 Jul;41(1):111-6
pubmed: 17499038
Bone Miner. 1990 Jul;10(1):13-35
pubmed: 2397325
Sci Rep. 2020 Nov 26;10(1):20699
pubmed: 33244089
Am J Nephrol. 2020;51(10):833-838
pubmed: 32911468
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003 Nov;61(11):1245-8
pubmed: 14613077
J Bone Miner Res. 2005 Jul;20(7):1177-84
pubmed: 15940370
Saudi Dent J. 2016 Jan;28(1):3-11
pubmed: 26792963
Med Phys. 2009 Apr;36(4):1286-97
pubmed: 19472637
J Transl Med. 2017 Dec 23;15(1):263
pubmed: 29274638
Sci Rep. 2021 Jun 30;11(1):13586
pubmed: 34193933
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Apr;15(2):213-8
pubmed: 15008933
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Apr;74(4):829.e1-9
pubmed: 26763080
Osteoporos Int. 2010 Feb;21(2):263-73
pubmed: 19455271
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 01;11(3):e0150135
pubmed: 26930605
J Bone Miner Metab. 1999;17(1):37-44
pubmed: 10084400
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Apr;73(4):733.e1-10
pubmed: 25795580
Angle Orthod. 2013 May;83(3):402-9
pubmed: 23030553
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Mar;76(3):605-615
pubmed: 28923271
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018 Jul;55(6):798-806
pubmed: 27618613
Technol Health Care. 1998 Dec;6(5-6):361-72
pubmed: 10100939
J Orofac Orthop. 2022 Nov;83(6):403-411
pubmed: 34342661
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016 Mar 7;11(3):481-7
pubmed: 26712809
J Craniofac Surg. 2000 Jan;11(1):54-8
pubmed: 11314101
Bone. 1998 Jul;23(1):59-66
pubmed: 9662131
Clin Oral Investig. 2022 Sep;26(9):5809-5821
pubmed: 35567639
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Dec;42(8):1840-6
pubmed: 25150164
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Mar;123(3):817-825
pubmed: 19319044
J Bone Miner Res. 2004 Oct;19(10):1640-50
pubmed: 15355559
Bone Rep. 2022 Feb 11;16:101173
pubmed: 35198659
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008 Dec;46(8):665-70
pubmed: 18760515
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Apr;149(4):523-32
pubmed: 27021457
J Orthop Res. 1990 Nov;8(6):833-42
pubmed: 2213340