SDF-1 involvement in orthodontic tooth movement after tooth extraction.

The stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF-1)/chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4) axis plays a key role in alveolar bone metabolism during orthodontic tooth movement (OTM). Herein, the effects of the SDF-1/CXCR4 axis on the regional acceleratory phenomenon (RAP) in OTM velocity and on changes in the surrounding periodontium after adjacent tooth extraction in rats were investigated. Six-week-old male Wistar/ST rats underwent left maxillary first molar (M1) extraction and mesial OTM of the left maxillary second molar (M2) with a 10-g force closed-coil spring. Phosphate-buffered saline, immunoglobulin G (IgG) isotype control antibody, or anti-SDF-1 neutralizing monoclonal antibody were injected at the M1 and M2 interproximal areas (10 µg/0.1 mL) for the first three days. Analyses were performed after 1, 3, and 7 days (n = 7). The results demonstrated a significant increase in SDF-1 expression from day 1, which was effectively blocked via anti-SDF-1 neutralizing monoclonal antibody injection. On day 3, the M2 OTM distance and the number of positively stained osteoclasts significantly reduced alongside a reduction in inflammatory markers in the experimental group. Our results demonstrated that serial local injection of the anti-SDF-1 neutralizing monoclonal antibody reduces M2 OTM, osteoclast accumulation, and localized inflammatory responses in an OTM model with tooth extraction-induced RAP.

Utility of Vibratory Stimulation for Reducing Intraoral Injection Pain.

Intraoral local anesthesia injection is often perceived as a painful and anxiety-causing dental procedure. Vibration stimulus is one of the nonpharmacologic methods used to reduce unwanted sensations of local anesthesia injection. This clinical study evaluated the effectiveness of a recently introduced vibratory stimulation device in intraoral local anesthesia administration. Thirty-two subjects underwent 2 maxillary local anesthesia injections in 2 different sessions: 1 with conventional techniques and 1 with the aid of a vibratory stimulation device (DentalVibe). The pain levels were evaluated with a visual analog scale and the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale. The subjects were asked to choose the preferred method for future injections. The data were evaluated statistically. There were no significant differences between the 2 injection methods with regard to either pain evaluation method. The preference of the subjects regarding future injection technique was evenly distributed between the groups. The vibratory stimulation device used in this study did not provide any reduction in pain level associated with maxillary infiltration local anesthesia administration.