The in vitro effect of VEGF receptor inhibition on primary alveolar osteoblast nodule formation.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a master regulator and is required for the effective coupling of angiogenesis and osteogenesis supporting both skeletal development and postnatal bone repair. A direct role for VEGF in intramembranous-derived osteoblast growth and differentiation is not clear. We investigated the expression of primary alveolar osteoblast VEGF receptors and the subsequent effects on mineralization and nodule formation in vitro following VEGFR inhibition. METHODS: Primary human alveolar osteoblasts (HAOBs) were cultured in the presence of VEGF receptor inhibitors, exogenous VEGF or the bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid. VEGF, VEGFR1 and VEGFR2 mRNA expression and nodule formation following 21 days of culture. VEGFR1 protein expression was examined using immunofluorescence after 48 h. RESULTS: The HAOBs expressed high levels of VEGF and VEGFR1 protein but VEGFR2 was not detected. The VEGFR1/2 inhibitors, ZM306416 and KRN633, lead to a dose-dependent decrease in mineralization. Treatment with zoledronic acid showed no difference in HAOB VEGF receptor expression. CONCLUSION: VEGF/VEGFR1 pathway appears to be important for intramembranous-derived osteoblast differentiation and maturation in vitro.

Reporting of sources of funding in systematic reviews in periodontology and implant dentistry.

Industry-supported clinical trials may present better outcomes than those supported by other sources. The aim of this paper was to assess whether systematic reviews (SRs) published in periodontology and implant dentistry report and discuss the influence of funding sources on study results. Two reviewers conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews independently and in duplicate to identify SRs published up to 11 November 2012. Speciality dental journals and the reference lists of included SRs were also scrutinised. Information on the reporting and discussion of funding sources of primary studies included in the SRs was extracted independently and in duplicate. Any disagreement regarding SR selection or data extraction was discussed until consensus was achieved. Of 146 SRs included in the assessment, only 45 (31%) reported the funding sources of primary studies. Fourteen (10%) SRs discussed the potential influence of funding sources on study results, that is, sponsorship bias. Funding sources are inadequately reported and discussed in SRs in periodontology and implant dentistry. Assessment, reporting, and critical appraisal of potential sponsorship bias of meta-analytic estimates are paramount to provide proper guidance for clinical treatments.