Medical and Dental Consultantsí Association of Nigeria
Home - About us - Editorial board - Search - Ahead of print - Current issue - Archives - Submit article - Instructions - Subscribe - Advertise - Contacts - Login 
  Users Online: 1507   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 

  Table of Contents 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 24  |  Issue : 10  |  Page : 1438-1441

Comparative analysis of growth factors and chemokine secretions between conventional lingual and labial fixed orthodontic appliances


Department of Orthodontic, Collage of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Date of Submission07-Aug-2020
Date of Acceptance30-Sep-2020
Date of Web Publication16-Oct-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Hosam Ali Baeshen
Associate Professor and Consultant in Orthodontics Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, P. O. Box 80209 Jeddah 21589
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_493_20

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Background: Orthodontic appliances elicit the secretions of some cytokines, chemokines, and growth factors which further have some significances in the remodeling of periodontium tissues. The significant differential forces applied on the periodontium by different types of orthodontic appliances. The secretion of these factors is indirectly responsible for the proper resorption of bones of the periodontal region through molecular signaling, which further supports to facilitate organized movement of the teeth. Objective: In the present study, we carried out the assessment and comparative analysis of the growth factors and chemokines present in the saliva samples of the human subjects of orthodontic treatment with two different treatment modalities: conventional lingual and labial fixed orthodontic appliances. Materials and Methods: Total 40 saliva samples were collected of which 20 subjects were treated with the conventional lingual appliances and 20 subjects with the labial fixed appliances. All the salivary samples were acquired from the subjects after 21 days treatment. Cytometric bead array was performed to assess the growth factors and chemokines in the saliva on the flow cytometer. Results: No significant differences were seen in the growth factor secretion in the saliva of both types of subjects. The same trend was observed for the chemokine secretion in the saliva except CXCL8, CCL11, CCL2, CCL5, and CXCL9. Conclusion: The similarity in chemokine and growth factor profile between labial and lingual fixed orthodontic appliances indicates that their molecular mechanisms and overall effect on the periodontium are analogous.

Keywords: Chemokine, growth factors, orthodontic appliances, saliva, secretome


How to cite this article:
Baeshen HA. Comparative analysis of growth factors and chemokine secretions between conventional lingual and labial fixed orthodontic appliances. Niger J Clin Pract 2021;24:1438-41

How to cite this URL:
Baeshen HA. Comparative analysis of growth factors and chemokine secretions between conventional lingual and labial fixed orthodontic appliances. Niger J Clin Pract [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Dec 10];24:1438-41. Available from: https://www.njcponline.com/text.asp?2021/24/10/1438/328232




   Introduction Top


Orthodontic procedures employ different types of orthodontic appliances in the routine practice.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5] The appliances are characterized in different types contingent to their application that is location with which they are applied.[1],[6] All the types of orthodontic appliances are responsible for some differential forces exerted in the region of the periodontal tissue.[2],[7],[8] These mechanical forces applied on the periodontium cause the tissue to secrete a wide range of growth factors, cytokines, and chemokines.[1],[2],[3],[8],[9],[10] It is well known that the secreted molecules in the saliva have a crucial indirect role in the formation and resorption of the bone tissue through intrinsic signaling pathways, which is further implicated in the remodeling of the periodontium complex, which is required for the movement of the teeth.[1],[3],[6],[11],[12] A considerate understanding of the interactions and substantial changes in the secretion of these molecules is of utmost importance to decipher the factors affecting the bone formation during treatment and the investigations so far are attempting to apprehend the key molecules and the complex signalling pathways accountable for remodelling of the bone tissue for a successful orthodontic treatment.[3],[6],[13],[14] Due to the orthodontic treatment with different appliances, a variety of growth factors and chemokines are contemporary and continuously secreted in the saliva, which further contribute as molecular cues for the formation of the bone.[2],[3],[6],[11],[15],[16] Relating the growth factor and chemokine levels within various appliances used for orthodontic treatments has delivered a valued information to advance and constantly invent and develop innovative designed orthodontic appliances keeping in mind the health of periodontium and aesthetics as well as there is growing demand for it.[2],[8],[10],[17] In the present comparative analysis, we are making an effort to observe the growth factors and chemokines in the saliva of the subjects treated with two different approaches of orthodontic appliances.


   Materials and Methods Top


Sample collections and ethical permissions

According to guidelines of institutional ethical committee total 40 saliva samples were collected in a sterile container while obtaining the appropriate patient informed consent forms. The samples consisted of 20 samples each from the patients having conventional lingual orthodontic appliances and patients having labial fixed orthodontic appliances. The saliva samples were diluted two time of phosphate buffer saline and further utilized for flowcytometry-based cytometric bead analysis for growth factor and chemokine secretions.

Cytometric bead array for analysis of growth factors and chemokines in saliva samples

Diluted salivary samples were analyzed for the levels of growth factors and chemokines at pg/mL sensitivities using the cytometric bead array system. Levels of growth factors including VEGF, TGF alpha, SCF, PDGF-AA, PDGF-BB, HGF, bFGF, erythropoietin, EGF, Angiopoietin-2, GCSF, GMCSF, and MCSF were analyzed with the help of LEGENDplex™ Human Growth Factor Panel (13-plex) (740180) while following the protocol according to the manufacturer's guidelines. Levels of chemokines including CXCL8, CXCL10, CCL11, CCL17, CCL2, CCL5, CCL3, CXCL9, CXCL5, CCL20, CXCL1, CXCL11, and CCL4 were analyzed with the help of LEGENDplex™ Human Proinflammatory Chemokine Panel (13-plex) (740003). The value analysis was done by using LEGENDplex™ Data Analysis Software as well as manual method comparison was done.


   Results and Discussions Top


1. Growth factors were secreted in the saliva in a distinctive pattern in individual subjects with conventional lingual and labial fixed orthodontic appliances.

All the growth factors VEGF, TGF alpha, SCF, PDGF-AA, PDGF-BB, HGF, bFGF, Erythropoietin, EGF, Angiopoietin-2, GCSF, GMCSF, and MCSF were being secreted in more or less quantity in both the types of subjects [Figure 1]. Some of the growth factors were deviated with the use of different orthodontic appliances but not much substantial changes were observed except the factors VEGF, TGF alpha, bFGF, and EGF were being secreted more abundantly than other growth factors.
Figure 1: Cytometric bead array analysis for human growth factors. The quantitation and comparative analysis of growth factors in the samples was carried out by flow cytometry. VEGF: Vascular endothelial growth factor, TGF alpha: Transforming growth factor alpha, SCF: Stem cell factor, PDGF-AA: Platelet-derived growth factor AA, PDGF-BB: Platelet-derived growth factor BB, HGF: Hepatocyte growth factor, bFGF: basic fibroblast growth factor, EPO: Erythropoietin, EGF: Epidermal growth factor, Ang-2: Angiopoietin-2, GCSF: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, GMCSF: Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, MCSF: Macrophage colony-stimulating factor

Click here to view


More rigorous analysis of the molecular mechanisms and at the protein level is needed in individual as well as in more sample size to jump to a definitive conclusion.[4],[6],[18] For now, this data reflects that both the treatment modalities with conventional lingual and labial fixed do not affect the salivary growth factor secretions, which are responsible for the continual repair and growth of the oral tissues.

2. There was a slight uniqueness in the array of salivary chemokine secretions in individual subjects with conventional lingual and labial fixed orthodontic appliances.

The chemokines CXCL8, CXCL10, CCL11, CCL17, CCL2, CCL5, CCL3, CXCL9, CXCL5, CCL20, CXCL1, CXCL11, and CCL4 were evaluated and compared in both the types of subjects [Figure 2]. Among which the secretion of CXCL8, CCL11, CCL2, and CCL5 was more in the subjects with labial fixed appliances compared to those with subjects with conventional lingual appliances. On the contrary, though not significant, the secretion of CXCL9 was more in the subjects with conventional lingual appliances over those with the labial fixed appliances.
Figure 2: Cytometric bead array analysis for human chemokines. The quantitation and comparative analysis of chemokines in the samples was carried out by flow cytometry. CXCL8: C-X-C Motif Chemokine Ligand 8/(IL-8), CXCL10: C-X-C motif chemokine 10/(IP-10), CCL11: C-C Motif Chemokine Ligand 11/(eotaxin-1), CCL17: Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 17/(TARC), CCL2: chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2/(MCP1), CCL5: Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 5/(RANTES), CCL3: Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 3/(MIP-1-alpha), CXCL9: Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 9/(MIG), CXCL5: C-X-C motif chemokine 5/(ENA78), CCL20: Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 20/(LARC)/(MIP3A), CXCL1: chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 1/(GRO1)/(NAP-3), CXCL11: C-X-C motif chemokine 11/(I-TAC)/(IP-9), CCL4: Chemokine (C-C motif) ligands 4/(MIP-1β)

Click here to view


It was evident that the different types of appliances have different impact on the microenvironment governing the secretions of these molecules, which are involved rather responsible for the inflammatory actions. These changes even when not significant have a consequential influence on the overall long-term oral health including the homeostasis of the different oral tissues.

The patients have to stand these orthodontic appliances for a significantly extensive period of time.[1],[6],[7],[15],[19] Therefore, it is considerably required to understand the overall features of these appliance-based treatments. Orthodontic appliances are implicated many times on the onset and development of the periodontal diseases.[11],[13],[19],[20] Observing these regulatory molecules will likely to give rise to a crucial data for the future of the novel orthodontic appliances.

However, we could not endorse these factors at the genetic level. The exact signaling mechanisms demonstrating the synergistic action along with other secretory factors and cellular components remain unexplained in the present study. Our study strongly hints that the more high-throughput studies are must in this field to assess these essential appliances and to develop next generation and more safe orthodontic appliances.


   Conclusions Top


The comparative analysis of salivary growth factors and salivary chemokines in the subjects treated with the conventional lingual and labial fixed orthodontic appliances demonstrates that in both types of orthodontic treatments there are some changes in the secretions of the factors in the saliva as observed in a wide array of the growth factors and chemokines. Nevertheless, an advanced methodology with the sophisticated experimentation is desirable to understand the interplay between these molecules and their signaling pathways affected by these appliances.

Limitation of the present study

The major limitation was the sample size. Thus, further multicenter large-scale prospective studies are required to confirm the findings of the present study. Future studies could also ensure that the cytokine profiles are recorded at varying periods throughout the orthodontic treatment. This would prove valuable insights into the molecular mechanisms governing the oral biological changes induced by the varying orthodontic treatments.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form, the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Papageorgiou SN, Gölz L, Jäger A, Eliades T, Bourauel C. Lingual vs. labial fixed orthodontic appliances: Systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment effects. Eur J Oral Sci 2016;124:105-18.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Ata-Ali F, Plasencia E, Lanuza-Garcia A, Ferrer-Molina M, Melo M, Ata-Ali J. Effectiveness of lingual versus labial fixed appliances in adults according to the peer assessment rating index. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2019;155:819-25.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Pamukçu H, Polat-Özsoy Ö, Gülşahi A, Özemre MÖ. External apical root resorption after nonextraction orthodontic treatment with labial vs. lingual fixed appliances. J Orofac Orthop 2020;81:41-51.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Liu YCG, Lerner UH, Teng YTA. Cytokine responses against periodontal infection: Protective and destructive roles. Periodontol 2000 2010;52:163-206.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
de Aguiar MC, Perinetti G, Capelli J. The gingival crevicular fluid as a source of biomarkers to enhance efficiency of orthodontic and functional treatment of growing patients. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:1.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Caballé-Serrano J, Cvikl B, Bosshardt DD, Buser D, Lussi A, Gruber R. Saliva suppresses osteoclastogenesis in murine bone marrow cultures. J Dent Res 2015;94:192-200.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Gomes AM, Douglas-de Oliveira DW, Oliveira Costa F. Could the biomarker levels in saliva help distinguish between healthy implants and implants with peri-implant disease? A systematic review. Arch Oral Biol 2018;96:216-222.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Knösel M, Vogel Alvarez R, Blanck-Lubarsch M, Helms HJ. Comparison of potential long-term costs for preventive dentistry treatment of post-orthodontic labial versus lingual enamel cavitations and esthetically relevant white-spot lesions: A simulation study with different scenarios. Head Face Med 2019;15:1-10.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Ata-Ali F, Cobo T, De Carlos F, Cobo J, Ata-Ali J. Are there differences in treatment effects between labial and lingual fixed orthodontic appliances? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:1-11.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Guvenc B, Torun O, Filiz AK, Abdurrahman K, Orhan H. Interleukine-1beta and tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels in the human gingival sulcus during orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 2006;76:830-6.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Gujar AN, Baeshen HA, Alhazmi A, Bhandi S, Raj AT, Patil S, et al. Cytokine levels in gingival crevicular fluid during orthodontic treatment with aligners compared to conventional labial fixed appliances: A 3-week clinical study. Acta Odontol Scand 2019;77:474-81.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Kaczor-Urbanowicz KE, Martin Carreras-Presas C, Aro K, Tu M, Garcia-Godoy F, Wong DTW. Saliva diagnostics – Current views and directions. Exp Biol Med 2017;242:459-72.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Proctor GB. The physiology of salivary secretion. Periodontol 2000 2016;70:11-25.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Theda C, Hwang SH, Czajko A, Loke YJ, Leong P, Craig JM. Quantitation of the cellular content of saliva and buccal swab samples. Sci Rep 2018;8:4-11.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Ana Zilda NB, Paulo NF, Cássio do N, Renato VC, Márcio ZC, Marcela DA, et al. Cytokine profile changes in gingival crevicular fluid after placement di-erent brackets types. Arch Oral Biol 2018;85:79-83.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Demling A, Demling C, Schwestka-Polly R, Stiesch M, Heuer W. Influence of lingual orthodontic therapy on microbial parameters and periodontal status in adults. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:638-42.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Ren Y, Vissink A. Cytokines in crevicular fluid and orthodontic tooth movement. Eur J Oral Sci 2008;116:89-97.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Tommaso C, Eugenio FG, Gian PC, Andrea D. Biochemical markers of bone metabolism during early orthodontic tooth movement with aligners. Angle Orthod 2017;87:74-81.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Guvenc B, Torun O, Filiz AK, Abdurrahman K Orhan H. Interleukins 2, 6, 8 levels in human gingival sulcus during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 2006;130:7.e1-6.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Maria FS, Maurizia D, Francesca Z, Roberto B, Mario C, Marco B, et al. Influence of lingual bracket position on microbial and periodontal parameters in vivo. J Appl Oral Sci 2012;20:357-61.  Back to cited text no. 20
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
    Results and Disc...
   Conclusions
    References
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1014    
    Printed22    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded127    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal