Comparison of three methods for establishing rat peri-implantitis model

  • Ling-wei MENG ,
  • Xue LI ,
  • Sheng-han GAO ,
  • Yue LI ,
  • Rui-tao CAO ,
  • Yi ZHANG ,
  • Shao-xia PAN
Expand
  • 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digi-tal Medical Devices & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology & NHC Research Center of Engineering and Technology for Computerized Dentistry & NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Beijing 100081, China
    2. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Beijing 100850, China

Received date: 2022-10-11

  Online published: 2023-01-31

Supported by

the National Key R & D Program of China(2020YFC2009005);National Program for Multidisciplinary Cooperative Treatment on Major Diseases(PKUSSNMP-202004);Beijing Natural Science Foundation(7222228)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficiency and effect of establishing rat peri-implantitis model by traditional cotton thread ligation and local injection of Porphyromonas gingivalis lipopolysaccharide (LPS) around the implant, as well as the combination of the two methods. Methods: Left side maxillary first molars of 39 male SD rats were extracted, and titanium implants were implanted after four weeks of healing. After 4 weeks of implant osseointegration, 39 rats were randomly divided into 4 groups. Cotton thread ligation (n=12), local injection of LPS around the implant (n=12), and the two methods combined (n=12) were used to induce peri-implantitis, the rest 3 rats were untreated as control group. All procedures were conducted under 5% isoflurane inhalation anesthesia. The rats were sacrificed 2 weeks and 4 weeks after induction through carbon dioxide asphyxiation method. The maxilla of the rats in the test groups were collected and marginal bone loss was observed by micro-CT. The gingival tissues around the implants were collected for further real time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) analysis, specifically the expression of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) as well as interleukin-1β (IL-1β). The probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP) and gingival index (GI) of each rat in the experimental group were recorded before induction of inflammation and before death. Results: After 4 weeks of implantation, the osseointegration of implants were confirmed. All the three test groups showed red and swollen gums, obvious marginal bone loss around implants. After 2 weeks and 4 weeks of inflammation induction, PD, GI and BOP of the three test groups increased compared with those before induction, but only BOP was statistically significant among the three test groups (P < 0.05). At the end of 2 weeks of inflammation induction, marginal bone loss was observed at each site in the cotton thread ligation group and the combined group. At each site, the bone resorption in the combined group was greater than that in the cotton thread ligation group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05), bone resorption was observed at some sites of some implants in LPS local injection group. At the end of 4 weeks of inflammation induction, marginal bone loss was observed at all sites in each group. The marginal bone loss in the cotton thread ligation group and the combined group was greater than that in the LPS local injection group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). At the end of 2 weeks and 4 weeks of induction, the expression of TNF-α and IL-1β in the test groups were higher than those in the control group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Compared with local injection of LPS around the implant, cotton thread ligature and the two methods combined can induce peri-implantitis in rats better and faster.

Cite this article

Ling-wei MENG , Xue LI , Sheng-han GAO , Yue LI , Rui-tao CAO , Yi ZHANG , Shao-xia PAN . Comparison of three methods for establishing rat peri-implantitis model[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2023 , 55(1) : 22 -29 . DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2023.01.004

References

1 Schwarz F , Alcoforado G , Guerrero A , et al. Peri-implantitis: Summary and consensus statements of group 3. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2021, 32 (Suppl 21): 245- 253.
2 Schliephake H , Sicilia A , Nawas BA , et al. Drugs and diseases: Summary and consensus statements of group 1. The 5 th EAO Consensus Conference 2018[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2018, 29 (Suppl 18): 93- 99.
3 Roccuzzo M , Layton DM , Roccuzzo A , et al. Clinical outcomes of peri-implantitis treatment and supportive care: A systematic review[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2018, 29 (Suppl 16): 331- 350.
4 Fu JH , Wang HL . Breaking the wave of peri-implantitis[J]. Periodontol 2000, 2020, 84 (1): 145- 160.
5 Wancket LM . Animal models for evaluation of bone implants and devices: Comparative bone structure and common model uses[J]. Vet Pathol, 2015, 52 (5): 842- 850.
6 Schwarz F , Sculean A , Engebretson SP , et al. Animal models for peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis[J]. Periodontol 2000, 2015, 68 (1): 168- 181.
7 Kantarci A , Hasturk H , Van Dyke TE . Animal models for periodontal regeneration and peri-implant responses[J]. Periodontol 2000, 2015, 68 (1): 66- 82.
8 朱白雪, 高晓蔚, 戴晓玮. 种植体周围炎动物模型的研究进展[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2018, 38 (8): 747- 751.
9 Kensara A , Hefni E , Williams MA , et al. Microbiological profile and human immune response associated with peri-implantitis: A systematic review[J]. J Prosthodont, 2021, 30 (3): 210- 234.
10 Sun J , Eberhard J , Glage S , et al. Development of a peri-implantitis model in the rat[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2020, 31 (3): 203- 214.
11 杨少强, 廖旭辉, 顾为望, 等. 牙周炎犬种植体周围炎动物模型建立[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2011, 31 (12): 746- 750.
12 Miyamoto Y , Koretake K , Hirata M , et al. Influence of static overload on the bony interface around implants in dogs[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2008, 21 (5): 437- 444.
13 李星佳, 陈琪欣, 袁长永, 等. 种植体周围炎大鼠模型研究[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2021, 37 (4): 314- 318.
14 Reinedahl D , Chrcanovic B , Albrektsson T , et al. Ligature-induced experimental peri-implantitis: A systematic review[J]. J Clin Med, 2018, 7 (12): 492.
15 Deng S , Hu Y , Zhou J , et al. TLR4 mediates alveolar bone resorption in experimental peri-implantitis through regulation of CD45(+) cell infiltration, RANKL/OPG ratio, and inflammatory cytokine production[J]. J Periodontol, 2020, 91 (5): 671- 682.
16 吴亚菲, 赵筱芩, 陈宇, 等. 不同方法建立大鼠实验性牙周炎模型的比较研究[J]. 四川大学学报(医学版), 2003, 34 (4): 742- 745.
17 He Q , Mu Z , Shrestha A , et al. Development of a rat model for type 2 diabetes mellitus peri-implantitis: A preliminary study[J]. Oral Dis, 2021, 28 (7): 1936- 1946.
18 Orecchioni M , Ghosheh Y , Pramod AB , et al. Macrophage polarization: Different gene signatures in M1(LPS+) vs. classically and M2(LPS-) vs. alternatively activated macrophages[J]. Front Immunol, 2019, 10, 1084.
19 柯晓菁, 李厚轩, 闫福华, 等. 牙龈卟啉单胞菌脂多糖对骨髓来源的巨噬细胞和破骨细胞先天免疫反应的影响[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2020, 55 (1): 32- 37.
20 Park SY , Kim KH , Rhee SH , et al. An immediate peri-implantitis induction model to study regenerative peri-implantitis treatments[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2017, 28 (1): 36- 42.
21 Hasani-Sadrabadi MM , Sarrion P , Pouraghaei S , et al. An engineered cell-laden adhesive hydrogel promotes craniofacial bone tissue regeneration in rats[J]. Sci Transl Med, 2020, 12 (534): eaay6853.
Outlines

/