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 Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Savignat, M. Articles by Libersa, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Savignat, M. Articles by Libersa, P. Pubmed/NCBI databases Compound via MeSH Substance via MeSH Hazardous Substances DB LACTIC ACID Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Rat Nerve Regeneration with the Use of a Polymeric Membrane Loaded with NGF

¹ Faculté de Chirurgie Dentaire, Université de Lille 2, Place de Verdun, 59000 Lille, France;
² Unité de Neurosciences et Physiologie Adaptatives, UPRES EA 4052, Laboratoire de Plasticité Neuromusculaire, Université des Sciences et Technologies de Lille, 59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq Cedex, France; and
³ INSERM Unité 595, Faculté de Chirurgie Dentaire, Université Louis Pasteur, 11 rue Humann, 67085 Strasbourg Cedex, France

View larger version (36K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Qualitative representations of the ipsilateral mental nerve afferent neurograms before (A), immediately after (B), 1 mo after (C), and 3 mos after (D) a crush lesion in the CONT and NGF groups. The horizontal hatched line indicates the four-second-long stimulation of the ipsilateral labial commissura. Note the increased activity with NGF treatment at 1 mo after lesion creation.

View larger version (41K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Histogram of quantitative adaptive changes in the mental nerve afferent neurograms before and 1, 2, and 3 mos after a crush lesion in the CONT (n = 10, black bars), SHAM (n = 10, white bars), and NGF (n = 10, hatched bars) groups. Results are expressed as mean ± SD (V). Gain = 20,000. Note the significant increase in the afferent activity, 1 mo after the crush, with NGF treatment. *Indicates a significant difference compared with the CONT group, +difference compared with the SHAM group, and #difference compared with the value before the lesion in each group (P < 0.05).

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Isolated rat trigeminal ganglion (A) and sensory neuron soma labelings in the mandibular division (B) after FAST DiI injections in the ipsilateral lower lip.

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Global distribution histograms of soma sizes (µm2) of the total number of labeled sensory neurons in each animal group: TEM, 1 mo (A; n = 7 rats and 3490 neurons); CONT, 1 mo (B; n = 6 rats and 1950 neurons); and NGF, 1 mo (C; n = 7 rats and 3630 neurons).

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 86, No. 11, 1051-1056 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910708601106


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