This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bartlett, J.D. Articles by Smith, C.E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bartlett, J.D. Articles by Smith, C.E. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Decreased Mineral Content in MMP-20 Null Mouse Enamel is Prominent During the Maturation Stage

¹ Department of Cytokine Biology and ² Department of Biomineralization, The Forsyth Institute, 140 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115, USA; and
³ Laboratory for the Study of Calcified Tissues and Biomaterials, Faculté de médecine dentaire, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada H3C 3J7;

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Normalized FTIR absorption spectra of enamel from wild-type (solid line) and MMP-20 null mice (dashed line), collected in ATR (A) and reflectance modes (B). Amide I protein band and 3 PO4 band are shown. Enamel from 4 null and 4 control teeth were analyzed.

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Means plots ± 95% confidence intervals of enamel mineral (ash) weight (A), protein content (B), mineral-to-protein (M:P) ratios (C), and percent mineral by weight (D) for wild-type (circles) vs. MMP-20 null (squares) incisors as a function of developmental stage (S, secretory; EM, early mature; NM, nearly mature). Differences in mineral content magnify as enamel development proceeds (A, S NM), and more protein appears to be retained in the nearly mature enamel of the MMP-20 null mice (B, NM). Ratio (C) and percent mineral by weight (D) differences are significant only relative to nearly mature enamel (NM; see also Table), when MMP-20 is not normally expressed (N values are provided in the Table).

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Box chart representing Knoop microhardness data for enamel from 2 maxillary incisors each from MMP-20 null mice (KO) and wild-type mice (WT). The Y-axis shows Knoop hardness numbers (KHN). The boxes outline the 25–75% data range, whiskers represent the standard deviation, squares in the boxes correspond to the mean hardness value, crosses (X) delimit the 99% data range, and hyphens (-) represent minimum and maximum hardness values. Average hardness for wild-type enamel (WTenamel) is 327 KHN10 (SD ± 70) and 207 KHN10 (SD ± 63) for MMP-20 null enamel (KOenamel). Student’s t test analysis demonstrated that the two means were significantly different (p = 0.005).

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 83, No. 12, 909-913 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910408301204


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?