The effects of tooth extraction on alveolar bone biomechanics in the miniature pig, Sus scrofa

• Published in: Archives of oral biology Vol. 55; no. 9; pp. 663 - 669
• Main Authors: Yeh, K, Popowics, T, Rafferty, K, Herring, S, Egbert, M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.09.2010
• Subjects: Advanced Basic Science; Alveolar bone; Alveolar Process - physiology; Animals; Biomechanical Phenomena; Compressive Strength; Dental Occlusion; Dental Stress Analysis; Dentistry; Electromyography; Masseter Muscle - growth & development; Mastication; Mastication - physiology; Maxilla - surgery; Microstrain; Occlusion; Periodontal Ligament - physiology; Shear Strength; Sus scrofa; Swine; Swine, Miniature; Tooth Calcification - physiology; Tooth Extraction; Occlusion; Mastication; Microstrain; Alveolar bone
• ISSN: 0003-9969; 1879-1506
• DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2010.05.014

Abstract Objective This study investigated the role of occlusion in the development of biomechanical properties of alveolar bone in the miniature pig, Sus scrofa . The hypothesis tested was that the tissues supporting an occluding tooth would show greater stiffness and less strain than that of a non-occluding tooth. Design Maxillary teeth opposing the erupting lower first molar (M1 ) were extracted on one side. Occlusion developed on the contralateral side. Serially administered fluorochrome labels tracked bone mineralisation apposition rate (MAR). A terminal experiment measured in vivo buccal alveolar bone strain on occluding and non-occluding sides during mastication. Ex vivo alveolar strains during occlusal loading were subsequently measured using a materials testing machine (MTS/Sintech). Whole specimen stiffness and principal strains were calculated. Results MAR tended to be higher on the extraction side during occlusion. In vivo buccal shear strains were higher in the alveolar bone of the occluding side vs. the extraction side (mean of 471 μ ɛ vs. 281 μ ɛ , respectively; p = 0.04); however, ex vivo shear strains showed no significant differences between sides. Stiffness differed between extraction and occlusion side specimens, significantly so in the low load range (344 vs. 668 MPa, respectively; p = 0.04). Conclusions Greater in vivo shear strains may indicate more forceful chews on the occluding side, whereas the similarity in ex vivo bone strain magnitude suggests a similarity in alveolar bone structure and occlusal load transmission regardless of occlusal status. The big overall change in specimen stiffness that was observed was likely attributable to differences in the periodontal ligament rather than alveolar bone.