Comprehensive analysis of M2 macrophage-derived exosomes facilitating osteogenic differentiation of human periodontal ligament stem cells.

BACKGROUND: The role of periodontal ligament stem cells (PDLSCs) and macrophage polarization in periodontal tissue regeneration and bone remodeling during orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) has been well documented. Nevertheless, the interactions between macrophages and PDLSCs in OTM remain to be investigated. Consequently, the present study was proposed to explore the effect of different polarization states of macrophages on the osteogenic differentiation of PDLSCs. METHODS: After M0, M1 and M2 macrophage-derived exosomes (M0-exo, M1-exo and M2-exo) treatment of primary cultured human PDLSCs, respectively, mineralized nodules were observed by Alizarin red S staining, and the expression of ALP and OCN mRNA and protein were detected by RT-qPCR and Western blotting, correspondingly. Identification of differentially expressed microRNAs (DE-miRNA) in M0-exo and M2-exo by miRNA microarray, and GO and KEGG enrichment analysis of DE-miRNA targets, and construction of protein-protein interaction networks. RESULTS: M2-exo augmented mineralized nodule formation and upregulated ALP and OCN expression in PDLSCs, while M0-exo had no significant effect. Compared to M0-exo, a total of 52 DE-miRNAs were identified in M2-exo. The expression of hsa-miR-6507-3p, hsa-miR-4731-3p, hsa-miR-4728-3p, hsa-miR-3614-5p and hsa-miR-6785-3p was significantly down-regulated, and the expression of hsa-miR-6085, hsa-miR-4800-5p, hsa-miR-4778-5p, hsa-miR-6780b-5p and hsa-miR-1227-5p was significantly up-regulated in M2-exo compared to M0-exo. GO and KEGG enrichment analysis revealed that the downstream targets of DE-miRNAs were mainly involved in the differentiation and migration of multiple cells. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, we have indicated for the first time that M2-exo can promote osteogenic differentiation of human PDLSCs, and have revealed the functions and pathways involved in the DE-miRNAs of M0-exo and M2-exo and their downstream targets.

Meta-analysis dataset comparing orthodontic mini-implants and conventional anchorage reinforcement for maximum orthodontic anchorage.

The present article describes data from systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety outcomes comparing mini-implants (MIs) and conventional anchorage reinforcement in patients with maximum dentoalveolar protrusion. All relevant RCTs and non-RCTs published up to 2018 were collected from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane database. Thirteen studies assessing the effect of mini-implants were included, of which 4 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 9 observational studies. The efficacy parameters include mesiodistal movements of molars and incisors and vertical movements of molars and incisors. Whereas, the safety parameters were angular and linear measurement of soft tissue change. Subgroup analysis data was provided in terms of patients average age (<18 years and ≥18 years) at the initiation of treatment. This dataset is suitable for research purpose in the field of orthodontics and also helps dental doctors to determine their treatment preferences in the choice of anchorage reinforcement.

Comparison of Anchorage Efficiency of Orthodontic Mini-implant and Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement in Patients Requiring Maximum Orthodontic Anchorage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of mini-implants (MIs) and conventional anchorage appliances used for orthodontic anchorage reinforcement in patients with class I or II malocclusion with bimaxillary protrusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature search was conducted through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane from inception to July 2018. The following Medical Subject Heading terms were used for the search string: "skeletal anchorage", "temporary anchorage devices", "miniscrew implant", "mini-implant", "micro-implant". Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of horizontal and vertical movements of teeth from baseline were used for comparison. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies were included in the final analysis. MI group significantly lowered mesial movement of molars compared to conventional anchorage group (SMD = -1.48, 95% CI = -2.25 to -0.72; P = .0002). There was significantly higher retraction of incisors in the MI group than in the conventional group (SMD = -0.47 mm, 95% CI = -0.87 to -0.07; P = .02). No significant difference was seen in vertical movement of molars (SMD = -0.21 mm, 95% CI = -0.87 to 0.45; P = .52) and incisors (SMD = -0.30, 95% CI = -1.18 to 0.58; P = .5). CONCLUSION: MIs seem to be more effective than the conventional anchorage devices in terms of minimizing unintended mesial movement of molars with maximum retraction of anterior teeth.

Soft Tissue Changes in Patients With Dentoalveolar Protrusion Treated With Maximum Anchorage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed at comparing the angular and linear changes of soft tissue profile using conventional anchorage techniques and mini-implant (MI)-based space closure in patients with dentoalveolar protrusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases, viz. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched for relevant literature from their inception to December 2017 according to the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The following Medical Subject Heading terms were used for searching: "skeletal anchorage", "temporary anchorage devices", "miniscrew implant", "mini-implant", "micro-implant". Selected randomized control trials (RCTs) were assessed for their quality using Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool, whereas the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for non-RCTs. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained with either fixed- or random-effects models based on the heterogeneity of the included studies. RESULTS: A total of 5 articles (2 RCTs with moderate risk of bias and 3 high-quality non-RCT studies) were included in the final analysis. The nasolabial angle had significantly greater changes in the MI group than in the conventional anchorage group (SMD = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.97, P < .0001). Significantly higher retraction of the upper lip was seen in the MI group than in the conventional group (SMD = -0.51, 95% CI = -0.84 to -0.18; P = .002). No significant difference was seen in the facial convexity (SMD = -0.34, 95% CI = -0.76 to 0.07, P = .106) and lower lip retraction (SMD = 0.28, 95% CI = -1.72 to 2.28, P = .784) between the groups. CONCLUSION: It was seen that MIs facilitated favorable soft tissue profile than the conventional anchorage devices. However, more high-quality studies are warranted to confirm the clinical effectiveness of MIs.