A simple rocker-induced mechanical stimulus upregulates mineralization by human osteoprogenitor cells in fibrous scaffolds.

Biodegradable electrospun polycaprolactone scaffolds can be used to support bone-forming cells and could fill a thin bony defect, such as in cleft palate. Oscillatory fluid flow has been shown to stimulate bone production in human progenitor cells in monolayer culture. The aim of this study was to examine whether bone matrix production by primary human mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow or jaw periosteal tissue could be stimulated using oscillatory fluid flow supplied by a standard see-saw rocker. This was investigated for cells in two-dimensional culture and within electrospun polycaprolactone scaffolds. From day 4 of culture onwards, samples were rocked at 45 cycles/min for 1 h/day, 5 days/week (rocking group). Cell viability, calcium deposition, collagen production, alkaline phosphatase activity and vascular endothelial growth factor secretion were evaluated to assess the ability of the cells to undergo bone differentiation and induce vascularisation. Both cell types produced more mineralized tissue when subjected to rocking and supplemented with dexamethasone. Mesenchymal progenitors and primary human mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow in three-dimensional scaffolds upregulated mineral deposition after rocking culture as assessed by micro-computed tomography and alizarin red staining. Interestingly, vascular endothelial growth factor secretion, which has previously been shown to be mechanically sensitive, was not altered by rocking in this system and was inhibited by dexamethasone. Rocker culture may be a cost effective, simple pretreatment for bone tissue engineering for small defects such as cleft palate.

Interventions for iatrogenic inferior alveolar and lingual nerve injury.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic injury of the inferior alveolar or lingual nerve or both is a known complication of oral and maxillofacial surgery procedures. Injury to these two branches of the mandibular division of the trigeminal nerve may result in altered sensation associated with the ipsilateral lower lip or tongue or both and may include anaesthesia, paraesthesia, dysaesthesia, hyperalgesia, allodynia, hypoaesthesia and hyperaesthesia. Injury to the lingual nerve may also affect taste perception on the affected side of the tongue. The vast majority (approximately 90%) of these injuries are temporary in nature and resolve within eight weeks. However, if the injury persists beyond six months it is deemed to be permanent. Surgical, medical and psychological techniques have been used as a treatment for such injuries, though at present there is no consensus on the preferred intervention, or the timing of the intervention. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of different interventions and timings of interventions to treat iatrogenic injury of the inferior alveolar or lingual nerves. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trial Register (to 9 October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 9 October 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 9 October 2013). No language restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving interventions to treat patients with neurosensory defect of the inferior alveolar or lingual nerve or both as a sequela of iatrogenic injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We contacted authors to clarify the inclusion criteria of the studies. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies assessed as at high risk of bias, reporting data from 26 analysed participants were included in this review. The age range of participants was from 17 to 55 years. Both trials investigated the effectiveness of low-level laser treatment compared to placebo laser therapy on inferior alveolar sensory deficit as a result of iatrogenic injury.Patient-reported altered sensation was partially reported in one study and fully reported in another. Following treatment with laser therapy, there was some evidence of an improvement in the subjective assessment of neurosensory deficit in the lip and chin areas compared to placebo, though the estimates were imprecise: a difference in mean change in neurosensory deficit of the chin of 8.40 cm (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.67 to 13.13) and a difference in mean change in neurosensory deficit of the lip of 21.79 cm (95% CI 5.29 to 38.29). The overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was very low; the outcome data were fully reported in one small study of 13 patients, with differential drop-out in the control group, and patients suffered only partial loss of sensation. No studies reported on the effects of the intervention on the remaining primary outcomes of pain, difficulty eating or speaking or taste. No studies reported on quality of life or adverse events.The overall quality of the evidence was very low as a result of limitations in the conduct and reporting of the studies, indirectness of the evidence and the imprecision of the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is clearly a need for randomised controlled clinical trials to investigate the effectiveness of surgical, medical and psychological interventions for iatrogenic inferior alveolar and lingual nerve injuries. Primary outcomes of this research should include: patient-focused morbidity measures including altered sensation and pain, pain, quantitative sensory testing and the effects of delayed treatment.

Systemic interventions for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers).

BACKGROUND: Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) is the most frequent form of oral ulceration, characterised by recurrent oral mucosal ulceration in an otherwise healthy individual. At its worst RAS can cause significant difficulties in eating and drinking. Treatment is primarily aimed at pain relief and the promotion of healing to reduce the duration of the disease or reduce the rate of recurrence. A variety of topical and systemic therapies have been utilised. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effect of systemic interventions in the reduction of pain associated with RAS, a reduction in episode duration or frequency. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches of: Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 6 June 2012); CENTRAL via The Cochrane Library (to Issue 4, 2012); MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 6 June 2012); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 6 June 2012); CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 6 June 2012); and AMED via PubMed (1950 to 6 June 2012). We searched reference lists from relevant articles and contacted the authors of eligible trials to identify further trials and obtain additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which the primary outcome measures assess a reduction of pain associated with RAS, a reduction in episode duration or a reduction in episode frequency. Trials were not restricted by outcome alone. We also included RCTs of a cross-over design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data in duplicate. We contacted trial authors for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. We carried out risk of bias assessment on six domains. We followed The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines and risk ratio (RR) values were to be calculated using fixed-effect models (if two or three trials in each meta-analysis) or random-effects models (if four or more trials in each meta-analysis). MAIN RESULTS: A total of 25 trials were included, 22 of which were placebo controlled and eight made head-to-head comparisons (five trials had more than two treatment arms). Twenty-one different interventions were assessed. The interventions were grouped into two categories: immunomodulatory/anti-inflammatory and uncertain. Only one study was assessed as being at low risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No single treatment was found to be effective and therefore the results remain inconclusive in regard to the best systemic intervention for RAS. This is likely to reflect the poor methodological rigour of trials, and lack of studies for certain drugs, rather than the true effect of the intervention. It is also recognised that in clinical practice, individual drugs appear to work for individual patients and so the interventions are likely to be complex in nature. In addition, it is acknowledged that systemic interventions are often reserved for those patients who have been unresponsive to topical treatments, and therefore may represent a select group of patients.