Fibroblast growth factor 8 (FGF‐8), also known as androgen‐induced growth factor (AIGF), is presumed to be a potent mitogenic cytokine that plays important roles in early embryonic development, brain formation and limb development. In the bone environment, FGF‐8 produced or received by chondrocyte precursor cells binds to fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), causing different levels of activation of downstream signalling pathways, such as phospholipase C gamma (PLCγ)/Ca2+, RAS/mitogen‐activated protein kinase‐extracellular regulated protein kinases (RAS/MAPK‐MEK‐ERK), and Wnt‐β‐catenin‐Axin2 signalling, and ultimately controlling chondrocyte proliferation, differentiation, cell survival and migration. However, the molecular mechanism of FGF‐8 in normal or pathological cartilage remains unclear, and thus, FGF‐8 represents a novel exploratory target for studies of chondrocyte development and cartilage disease progression. In this review, studies assessing the relationship between FGF‐8 and chondrocytes that have been published in the past 5 years are systematically summarized to determine the probable mechanism and physiological effect of FGF‐8 on chondrocytes. Based on the existing research results, a therapeutic regimen targeting FGF‐8 is proposed to explore the possibility of treating chondrocyte‐related diseases.

No abstract

Objectives To analyze the anatomical limitations and characteristics of maxillary and mandibular retromolar regions affecting molar distalization using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods A total of 120 qualifying patients were classified into equal groups of skeletal Class II and Class III and stratified by vertical growth pattern, age, sex, and third molar presence. The available distance along the axis of distalization and cortical bone thickness (CBT) were measured in the maxillary and mandibular retromolar regions of Class II and Class III patients, respectively. One-way analysis of variance was used to examine the effects of the factors on the measured data. Results The minimum available distance of the Class II maxilla was observed at a level 3 mm from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), while that of the Class III mandible was at a level 9 mm from the CEJ. The average available distance at the limit level was 4.06 ± 1.93 mm in the Class II maxilla, and the average corresponding CBT was 1.00 mm. The average available distance at the limit level in the Class III mandible was 2.80 ± 1.96 mm, and the corresponding CBT was 2.24 mm. In both skeletal Class II and Class III patients, hyperdivergent groups had the least available distance for molar distalization. Conclusions The limit for available distance in the Class II maxilla is closer to the coronal level, while that of the Class III mandible is closer to the apical level. A hyperdivergent growth pattern in a patient is indicative of less potential for molar distalization. Axial slices of CBCT images provide valuable evaluation for molar distalization regarding limit levels.

No abstract

No abstract