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 Andrade, I. Articles by Teixeira, M.M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Andrade, I., Jr. Articles by Teixeira, M.M. Pubmed/NCBI databases Gene GEO Profiles HomoloGene UniGene Compound via MeSH Substance via MeSH Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Role of Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor Type 1 in Orthodontic Tooth Movement

¹ Department of Orthodontics, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais (PUC-Minas), Faculty of Dentistry, Belo Horizonte/MG, Brazil;
² Department of Oral Pathology, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Faculty of Dentistry, Av. Antônio Carlos 6627, CEP 31.270-901, Belo Horizonte/MG, Brazil;
³ Department of Morphology, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Belo Horizonte/MG, Brazil;
⁴ Department of Clinical Medicine, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Faculty of Medicine, Belo Horizonte/MG, Brazil; and
⁵ Department of Biochemistry and Immunology, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte/MG, Brazil

View larger version (110K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Occlusal view of a Ni-Ti open coil spring placed between the upper right first molar and the upper incisors. The orthodontic appliance applied a force of 0.1 N.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Mean concentrations of TNF- (A), CCL2 (B), and CCL5 (C) in the mouse periodontium (WT and p55–/–) after 12 hrs and 72 hrs of mechanical loading, respectively. There were 5 animals in each group on each day. The data were expressed as the mean ± SEM. *P < 0.05 compared with control and 72 hrs of orthodontic force (in the same animal strain). #P < 0.05 compared with WT groups at the same moment, by one-way ANOVA and Newman-Keuls’ multiple-comparison test.

View larger version (138K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Histological changes related to orthodontic tooth movement in WT (A,C,E,G) and p55–/– mice (B,D,F,H). Vertical sections (4-µm thickness) of the periodontium around the distobuccal root of the first molar stained with TRAP. (A-B) Controls (before mechanical loading). TRAP activity was found on the distal alveolar bone, demonstrating physiological distal tooth movement. (C-D) Experimental group (6 days after the application of orthodontic force). TRAP activity increased on the mesial alveolar bone and decreased on the distal alveolar bone. In p55–/– mice, there was a smaller increase of TRAP activity on the mesial alveolar bone. (E-F) Experimental group (12 days after mechanical loading). TRAP activity was less in p55–/– mice, which showed a smaller mesial alveolar bone resorption area. (G-H) Close-up view of the detached area in E and F. TRAP-positive osteoclasts are shown in blue arrows. MB, mesial alveolar bone; DB, distal alveolar bone; PL, periodontal ligament; R, root. The black arrows indicate the orthodontic tooth movement. Bar = 100 µm.

View larger version (25K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Number of TRAP-positive osteoclasts (A) and amount of tooth movement (B). (A) The number of TRAP-positive cells on the pressure side of the distobuccal root of the first molar during orthodontic tooth movement in the WT mice (dotted bars) and p55-/- mice (black and white square bars). The total number of positive cells in the distobucal root was determined in 5 consecutive microscopic fields (x 40), and each field had an area of 0.12 mm2. The results represent the mean of 5 sections per animal. (B) Time-course of changes in the amount of tooth movement between WT mice and p55–/– mice. We evaluated it morphometrically by measuring the distance between the cementum-enamel junctions (CEJs) from the first molar and second molars. These mice were killed before and 3, 6, and 12 days after the experiment was initiated. WT mice (filled squares); p55–/– mice (filled triangles). There were 5 animals in each group on each day. The data are expressed as the mean ± SEM. *P < 0.05 compared with 0 and 3 days of orthodontic force (in the same animal strain). **P < 0.05 compared with 0, 3, and 6 days of orthodontic force (in the same animal strain). #P < 0.05 compared with WT groups at the same moment, by one-way ANOVA and Newman-Keuls’ multiple-comparison test.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 86, No. 11, 1089-1094 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910708601113


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