RESUMO
BACKGROUND: One endpoint of periodontal therapy is to regenerate the structure lost due to periodontal disease. In the periodontium, gingival epithelium is regenerated by oral epithelium. Underlying connective tissue, periodontal ligament, bone, and cementum are derived from connective tissue. Primitive connective tissue cells may develop into osteoblasts and cementoblasts, which form bone and cementum. Several procedural advances may support these regenerations; however, the regeneration of alveolar bone does not always occur. Therefore, bone stimulating factors are a main topic for periodontal reconstructive research. The present study was designed to examine histopathologically whether the application of an electrical field could demonstrate enhanced alveolar and cementum regeneration and modify tissue factors. METHODS: Seven beagle dogs were used for this experiment. Mandibular left and right sides served as control and experimental sides, respectively, and 4-walled intrabony defects were created bilaterally between the third and fourth premolars. The experimental side was treated with a capacitively coupled electrical field (CCEF) (sinusoidal wave, 60 kHz, and 5 V peak-to-peak), applied for 14 hours per day. The following measurements were performed on the microphotographs: 1) the distance from the cemento-enamel junction to the apical notch (CEJ-AN) and from the crest of newly formed bone (alveolar ridge) to the apical notch (AR-AN); 2) the thickness of new cementum in the apical notch region; and 3) the length of junctional epithelium. The following histopathologic parameters were assessed by a semiquantitative subjective method: 1) inflammatory cell infiltration (ICI); 2) cellular activity of the periodontal ligament; 3) number and morphology of osteoclasts; 4) resorption lacunae; and 5) osteoblastic activity. RESULTS: The results showed that the quantity of new bone fill and the mean value of the thickness of the cementum were significantly higher for the experimental side (P < 0.01). The location of the base of the pocket was positioned more coronally with respect to the apical point of the coronal notch in the experimental side (statistically significant P < 0.01). The length of the junctional epithelium and the number of osteoclasts were higher in the stimulated side than the coronal side; these findings were also statistically significant (P < 0.01). The comparison of the electrically stimulated versus non-stimulated mandibles with the semiquantitative subjective method demonstrated statistically significant differences in defined histopathologic parameters, except for osteoclast morphologies (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the CCEF method has the potential to produce reconstructive effects and bone deposits. Further investigations with respect to the theoretical determination of local field parameters of the periodontal tissue complex, such as permittivity, conductivity, strength of the field electrical stimulation applied to the periodontal field current density, wavelength, and signal frequency appropriate for this field, should be undertaken. Using different electromotive forces alone or in combination with bone graft materials, guided tissue regeneration techniques, and dental implants may achieve a new dimension in periodontal therapy in the near future.