This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Wang, L.C. Articles by Mitani, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wang, L.C. Articles by Mitani, H. Pubmed/NCBI databases Compound via MeSH Substance via MeSH Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Osteoclastogenic Activity during Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis

¹ Division of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,
² Division of Craniofacial Development and Regeneration, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, 4-1, Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8575, Japan;

View larger version (177K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Design of the custom-made distractor (A), surgical procedure (B), radiographs before and after distraction (C,D), occlusal view of the experimental mandible (E), gross view of the distracted animal (F), and photomicrographs from H&E-stained sections from control (G,H), and groups at wk 0 (I,J), 1 wk (K,L), 2 wks (M,N), 4 wks (O,P), and 8 wks (Q,R) of the different consolidation periods are indicated. An arrow in C and solid lines in D, I, K, and M indicate the osteotomy line. An arrow in E indicates the asymmetrical occlusal attrition of the molars in experimental animals. An arrow in F indicates the midline deviation in experimental animals after distraction. OB, original bone; RB, regenerated bone; DG, distraction gap; Fi, fibrovascular tissue; Mar, marginal area; and Mid, central zone of the distraction gap. Original magnification in G, I, K, M, O, and Q, x1.6 (bar = 1.5 mm); and in H, J, L, N, P, and R, x20 (bar = 100 µm). All experiments were performed in triplicate (N = 3).

View larger version (182K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Photomicrographs from sections of in situ hybridization are indicated. Sections probed with Cathepsin K (A,B), MMP-9 (C,D), RANKL (E-H), IL-1β (I-L), TNF- (M-P), and osteopontin (Q-T). A, C, E, I, M, and Q: control specimens. B, D, F, J, N, and R: zero-week consolidation period group. G, K, O, and S: two-week consolidation group. H, L, P, and T: eight-week consolidation group. Black arrowheads indicate the positive signals. White arrowheads indicate the mononuclear cells positive for MMP-9. Arrows indicate the osteocytes in immature bone matrix. Original magnification: x20 (bar = 100 µm). All experiments were performed in triplicate (N = 3).

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 84, No. 11, 1010-1015 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910508401108


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