Comparison of tooth movement and biological response resulting from different force magnitudes combined with osteoperforation in rabbits

Abstract

Comparison of tooth movement and biological response resulting from different force magnitudes combined with osteoperforation in rabbits Objective: To compare tooth movement rate and histological responses with three different force magnitude designs under osteoperforation in rabbit models. Methodology: 48 rabbits were divided into three groups: Group A, Group B, and Group C, with traction force of 50 g, 100 g, 150 g, respectively.Osteoperforation was performed at the mesial of the right mandibular first premolar, the left side was not affected. One mini-screw was inserted into bones between two central incisors. Coil springs were fixed to the first premolars and the mini-screw. Tooth movement distance was calculated, and immunohistochemical staining of PCNA, OCN, VEGF, and TGF-β1 was analyzed. Results: The tooth movement distance on the surgical side was larger than the control side in all groups (P<0.01). No significant intergroup difference was observed for the surgical side in tooth movement distance among the three groups (P>0.05). For the control side, tooth movement distance in Group A was significantly smaller than Groups B and C (P<0.001); no significant difference in tooth movement distance between Group B and Group C was observed (P>0.05). On the tension area of the moving premolar, labeling of PCNA, OCN, VEGF and TGF-β1 were confirmed in alveolar bone and periodontal ligament in all groups. PCNA, OCN, VEGF and TGF-β1 on the surgical side was larger than the control side in all groups (P<0.001). Conclusion:Osteoperforation could accelerate orthodontic tooth movement rate in rabbits. Fast osteoperforation-assisted tooth movement in rabbits was achieve with light 50 g traction.

The effect of micro-osteoperforations on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement in animal model: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Two studies were excluded due to reporting data in an unacceptable format. 9 , 17 Two studies used 100 g, two articles used 50 g for traction force, and just HUANG et al, evaluated 3 different traction forces including, 50, 100, and 150 g. 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 Additional assessment of TM, tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP)-positive osteoclast count, and bone volume fraction were evaluated in three studies. 18 , 19 , 21 , 23 Finally, the main properties of six articles on 210 animals included in this meta-analysis with a wide range of species such as rat (n = 3), beagle dog (n = 1), and rabbit (n = 2) ( Fig.…”

“… 32 Whereas, In two of included studies, the highest TM was seen with 50 g force after 2 weeks. 20 , 22 In this line, to evaluate the effect of increasing force on TM, Haung et al assessed the rate of TM after 50, 100, and 150 g force; they found that by increasing applied force, the TM not changed significantly. 22 The evidence presented in this section suggested that there is very low supporting positive correlation between root resorption and applied force.…”

“… 20 , 22 In this line, to evaluate the effect of increasing force on TM, Haung et al assessed the rate of TM after 50, 100, and 150 g force; they found that by increasing applied force, the TM not changed significantly. 22 The evidence presented in this section suggested that there is very low supporting positive correlation between root resorption and applied force. 33 Secreting inflammatory cytokines due to forced applied causes TM by increasing osteoclasts.…”

Micro-Osteoperforations Induce TNF-α Expression and Accelerate Orthodontic Tooth Movement via TNF-α-Responsive Stromal Cells

“…The reports suggest that MOPs accelerate OTM effectively. Perforations to the alveolar bone around the teeth have also been reported to accelerate OTM in experimental animal models [ 11 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Perforation procedures of the alveolar bone were found to induce expression of inflammatory cytokines because of enhanced osteoclast formation [ 11 ].…”