Clinical oral implants research · 2020
Characterization of macrophages infiltrating peri-implantitis lesions.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fretwurst Tobias, Garaicoa-Pazmino Carlos, Nelson Katja, Giannobile William V, Squarize Cristiane H, Larsson Lena, Castilho Rogerio M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The mechanisms involved in the initiation and progression of peri-implantitis lesions are poorly understood. It was the aim to determine the content and activation status of macrophages present in human peri-implantitis lesions and compare the current findings with the macrophage polarization associated with periodontitis lesions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 14 patients were studied in this investigation. Seven were soft tissue biopsies from dental implants affected by peri-implantitis that required explantation. Seven biopsies were from chronic periodontal disease. Immunofluorescence stains were performed using biomarkers to identify macrophages (CD68+ ) undergoing M1 polarization (iNOS+ ) and M2 polarization (CD206+ ), along with Hoechst 33,342 to identify DNA content. All samples were stained and photographed, and double-positive cells for CD68 and iNOS or CD68 and CD206 were quantified.
RESULTS: All peri-implantitis biopsies examined revealed a mixed population of macrophages undergoing M1 polarization and M2 polarization. Further analysis demonstrated the co-expression of iNOS and CD206, which indicates the presence of a heterogenic immune response on peri-implantitis lesions. Macrophage polarization in peri-implantitis lesions presents a distinct pattern than in periodontitis. We observed a significant increase in the population of M1 macrophages on peri-implantitis samples compared to periodontal disease samples.
CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that peri-implantitis has higher numbers of macrophages displaying a distinct macrophage M1 polarization signature compared to periodontitis lesions. This pattern may explain, in part, the distinct nature of peri-implantitis progression vs. periodontitis in humans.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 14 patients were studied in this investigation. Seven were soft tissue biopsies from dental implants affected by peri-implantitis that required explantation. Seven biopsies were from chronic periodontal disease. Immunofluorescence stains were performed using biomarkers to identify macrophages (CD68+ ) undergoing M1 polarization (iNOS+ ) and M2 polarization (CD206+ ), along with Hoechst 33,342 to identify DNA content. All samples were stained and photographed, and double-positive cells for CD68 and iNOS or CD68 and CD206 were quantified.
RESULTS: All peri-implantitis biopsies examined revealed a mixed population of macrophages undergoing M1 polarization and M2 polarization. Further analysis demonstrated the co-expression of iNOS and CD206, which indicates the presence of a heterogenic immune response on peri-implantitis lesions. Macrophage polarization in peri-implantitis lesions presents a distinct pattern than in periodontitis. We observed a significant increase in the population of M1 macrophages on peri-implantitis samples compared to periodontal disease samples.
CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that peri-implantitis has higher numbers of macrophages displaying a distinct macrophage M1 polarization signature compared to periodontitis lesions. This pattern may explain, in part, the distinct nature of peri-implantitis progression vs. periodontitis in humans.