Expression analysis of matrix metalloproteinase-9 in epithelialized and nonepithelialized apical periodontitis lesions

Objective. The objective of this study was to determine the expression of matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) in apical periodontitis lesions. Study design. Nineteen epithelialized and 18 nonepithelialized apical periodontitis lesions were collected after periapical surgery. After histological processing, serial sectioning, H&E staining, and microscopic analysis, 10 epithelialized and 10 nonepithelialized lesions were selected for immunohistochemical analysis for MMP-9 and CD 68. At least one third of each specimen collected was frozen at -70 degrees C for further mRNA isolation and reverse transcription into cDNA for real-time-PCR procedures. Geometric averaging of multiple housekeeping genes normalized MMP-9 mRNA expression level. Results. Polymorphonuclear neutrophils, macrophages and lymphocytes presented MMP-9 positive immunostaining in both types of lesions. When present, epithelial cells were also stained. The number and the ratio of MMP-9(+)/total cells were greater in nonepithelialized than epithelialized lesions (P = .0001) presenting a positive correlation to CD68(+)/total cells (P = .045). Both types of lesions presented increased MMP-9 expression (P < .0001) when compared to healthy periapical ligaments. However, no significant differences were observed for MMP-9 mRNA expression between ephithelized and nonephithelized lesions. Conclusion. The present data suggest the participation of several inflammatory cells, mainly CD68(+) cells, in the MMP-9 expression in apical periodontitis lesions. MMP-9 could be actively enrolled in the extracellular matrix degradation in apical periodontitis lesions. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107: 127-132)

Effects of the pendulum appliance, cervical headgear, and 2 premolar extractions followed by fixed appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion

Introduction: In this retrospective study, we compared the cephalometric effects, the dental-arch changes, and the efficiency of Class II treatment with the pendulum appliance, cervical headgear, or extraction of 2 maxillary premolars, all associated with fixed appliance therapy. Methods: The sample of 82 patients with Class II malocclusion was divided into 3 groups: group 1 patients (n = 22; treatment time, 3.8 years) were treated with the pendulum appliance and fixed orthodontic appliances. Group 2 patients (n = 30; treatment time, 3.2 years) were treated with cervical headgear followed by fixed appliances; group 3 patients (n = 30; treatment time, 2.1 years) were treated with 2 maxillary premolar extractions and fixed appliances. The average starting ages of the groups ranged from 13.2 to 13.8 years. Data were obtained from serial cephalometric measurements and dental casts. The dental casts were analyzed with the treatment priority index. The treatment efficiency index was also used. Results: The 3 treatment protocols produced similar cephalometric effects, especially skeletally. Comparisons among the 2 distalizing appliances (pendulum and cervical headgear) and extraction of 2 maxillary premolars for Class II treatment showed changes primarily in the maxillary dentoalveolar component and dental relationships. The facial profile was similar after treatment, except for slightly more retrusion of the upper lip in the extraction patients. The treatment priority index demonstrated that occlusal outcomes also were similar among the groups. The treatment efficiency index had higher values for the extraction group. Conclusions: The effects of treatment with the pendulum appliance or cervical headgear and extraction of 2 maxillary premolars associated with fixed appliances were similar from both occlusal and cephalometric standpoints. Class II treatment with extraction of maxillary teeth was more efficient because of the shorter treatment time. Differences in maxillary incisor retraction should be noted, but these differences might have been due to greater maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion in the extraction group before treatment. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:833-42)