Metformin-loaded ß-TCP/CTS/SBA-15 composite scaffolds promote alveolar bone regeneration in a rat model of periodontitis.

Periodontitis is a progressive infectious inflammatory disease, which leads to alveolar bone resorption and loss of periodontal attachment. It is imperative for us to develop a therapeutic scaffold to repair the alveolar bone defect of periodontitis. In this study, we designed a new composite scaffold loading metformin (MET) by using the freeze-drying method, which was composed of ß-tricalcium phosphate (ß-TCP), chitosan (CTS) and the mesoporous silica (SBA-15). The scaffolds were expected to combine the excellent biocompatibility of CTS, the good bioactivity of ß-TCP, and the anti-inflammatory properties of MET. The MET-loaded ß-TCP/CTS/SBA-15 scaffolds showed improved cell adhesion, appropriate porosity and good biocompatibility in vitro. This MET composite scaffold was implanted in the alveolar bone defects area of rats with periodontitis. After 12 weeks, Micro-CT and histological analysis were performed to evaluate different degrees of healing and mineralization. Results showed that the MET-loaded ß-TCP/CTS/SBA-15 scaffolds promoted alveolar bone regeneration in a rat model of periodontitis. To our knowledge, this is the first report that MET-loaded ß-TCP/CTS/SBA-15 scaffolds have a positive effect on alveolar bone regeneration in periodontitis. Our findings might provide a new and promising strategy for repairing alveolar bone defects under the condition of periodontitis.

Comparison of the transfer accuracy of two digital indirect bonding trays for labial bracket bonding.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the transfer accuracy of two digital transfer trays, the three-dimensional printed (3D printed) tray and the vacuum-formed tray, in the indirect bonding of labial brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten digital dental models were constructed by oral scans using an optical scanning system. 3D printed trays and vacuum-formed trays were obtained through the 3Shape indirect bonding system and rapid prototyping technology (10 in each group). Then labial brackets were transferred to 3D printed models, and the models with final bracket positioning were scanned. Linear (mesiodistal, vertical, buccolingual) and angular (angulation, torque, rotation) transfer errors were measured using GOM Inspect software. The mean transfer errors and prevalence of clinically acceptable errors (linear errors of ≤0.5 mm and angular errors of ≤2°) of two digital trays were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test and the Chi-square test, respectively. RESULTS: The 3D printed tray had a lower mean mesiodistal transfer error (P < .01) and a higher prevalence of rotation error within the limit of 2° (P = .03) than did the vacuum-formed tray. Linear errors within 0.5 mm were higher than 90% for both groups, while torque errors within 2° were lowest at 50.9% and 52.9% for the 3D printed tray and vacuum-formed tray, respectively. Both groups had a directional bias toward the occlusal, mesial, and buccal. CONCLUSIONS: The 3D printed tray generally scored better in terms of transfer accuracy than did the vacuum-formed tray. Both types of trays had better linear control than angular control of brackets.