AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (3.1 MB)
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Basic Study | Publishing Language: Chinese | Open Access

Construction of an experimental miller Ⅲ gingival retraction animal model in beagle dogs

Gang PANGYan XU( )Ying WANGXingru YEJialin HEXianzhe XIEPeng JIANGBaojian XIN
Department of Periodontology, Affiliated Stomatology Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230032, China
Show Author Information

Abstract

Objective

To construct a Miller class Ⅲ gingival recession animal model and to lay the foundation for exploring the treatment of Miller class Ⅲ gingival recession.

Methods

Two adult male beagle dogs were selected, and four teeth from each beagle dog were selected to establish an experimental Miller class Ⅲ gingival recession model. The root surface was revealed by removing the soft and hard tissues of the buccal side. The success of the model was determined by measuring the vertical gingival retraction (VGR), horizontal retraction (HGR), keratosis tissue width (KTW), gingival tissue thickness (GTT), and probing depth (PD) at 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks after modeling.

Results

After observing the clinical indexes, the PDs before and after the modeling were all smaller than 3 mm and no deep-period pockets were formed. The VGR before modeling was 0 mm, and the VGR range after modeling was 5-6.38 mm. A comparison of the before and after modeling results showed that this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The postoperative VGR results were grouped according to timepoint. A comparison between the two groups showed that the differences at 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks postoperatively were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The HGR before the modeling was 0 mm, and the HGR fluctuated around 10.5 mm after the modeling, and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The HGR results were grouped by timepoint after surgery, and a one-way analysis of showed that the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The KTW range before modeling was 6~9 mm, and it fluctuated around 2 mm after modeling, and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The KTW results were grouped by timepoint after surgery, and they indicated that significant differences did not occur between the groups postoperatively (P > 0.05). The pre-modeling GTT was 1.5 mm, and the GTT range after modeling was 1.5-2 mm. The preoperative and postoperative GTT results were grouped by timepoint, and the results showed that significant differences did not occur between 1 week and 2 weeks after surgery (P = 0.123), although a statistically significant difference was observed at 1 week postoperatively between this group and the other groups (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The method used in this experiment can successfully build a Miller class Ⅲ gingival recession animal model, and the model remains stable after wound healing.

CLC number: R781.4 Document code: A Article ID: 2096-1456(2018)08-0496-08

References

【1】
【1】
 
 
Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases
Pages 496-503

{{item.num}}

Comments on this article

Go to comment

< Back to all reports

Review Status: {{reviewData.commendedNum}} Commended , {{reviewData.revisionRequiredNum}} Revision Required , {{reviewData.notCommendedNum}} Not Commended Under Peer Review

Review Comment

Close
Close
Cite this article:
PANG G, XU Y, WANG Y, et al. Construction of an experimental miller Ⅲ gingival retraction animal model in beagle dogs. Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases, 2018, 26(8): 496-503. https://doi.org/10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2018.08.004

2

Views

0

Downloads

0

Crossref

0

Scopus

Received: 21 March 2018
Revised: 02 May 2018
Published: 20 August 2018
© 2018 by Editorial Department of Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases