medigraphic.com
ISSN 0001-0944 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Dental Mexicana

2015, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev ADM 2015; 72 (3)

The dog (Canis familiaris) as an animal model in dental implant studies: An updated review of the literature

Valenzuela VG, Sánchez-Rubio CRM, Plascencia JA, Soto CLA, Grau LI

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 139-145
PDF size: 239.61 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The degree of variation in the results obtained in experiments that evaluate the anatomical and physiological responses of bone-implant interfaces in dogs is marked. This variance may be due to several factors, including the experimental units and the design of the experiment itself. The aim of this review of the scientific literature is to present the main factors that affect the variation in these results. Material and methods: A comparison was made between what are the recommended methods for trials involving canine dental implants and those published in the literature over the last 13 years (2000-2013). The literature in question was found and selected from articles available in PubMed, NCBI, and Google Scholar. A total of 61 articles were included in order to allow an analysis based on race, age, weight, and gonadal status. These key factors were used to construct a database, which included the number of repetitions per treatment. Crestal bone level changes were chosen as the response variable for analysis purposes and the observed variance in crestal bone level was determined. Data on crestal level behavior from the 61 publications were used, which provided 38 pieces of mean and standard deviations data. These were then used to determine the number of repetitions of a particular significance value (p ‹ 0.10 and p ‹ 0.05) and specific precision (in mm) to enable differences to be identified. Conclusions: According to the material reviewed and discussed, the variation in question may be due more to the experimental material and its design than to the treatments that were studied themselves. Future publications should include more complete and detailed information on the characteristics of the experimental units and the experiment design so as to allow a more accurate inference to be drawn from the results.


REFERENCES

  1. Pearce AI, Richards RG, Milz S, Schneider E, Pearce SG. Animal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: A Review. European Cells and Materials. 2007; 13: 1-10.

  2. Neyt JG, Buckwalter JA, Carroll NC. Use of animal models in musculoskeletal research. Iowa Orthop J. 1998; 18: 118-123.

  3. Aerssens J, Boonen S, Lowet G, Dequeker J. Interspecies differences in bone composition, density, and quality: potencial implications for in vivo bone research. Endocrinology. 1998; 139 (2): 663-670. Available in: http://endo.endojournals.org/content/139/2/663.full.pdf+html.

  4. Salvin HE, McGreevy PD, Sachdev PS, Valenzuela MJ. The effect of breed on age-related changes in behavior and disease prevalence in cognitively normal older community dogs, Canis lupus familiaris. J Vet Behav. 2012; 7 (2): 61-69.

  5. Hernández S. El modelo animal en investigaciones biomédicas. Biomedicina. 2006; 3: 252-256. Disponible en: http://www.um.edu.uy/docs/revistabiomedicina/2-3/modelo.pdf

  6. Scientific and humane issues in the use of random source dogs and cats in research. Committee on scientific and humane issues in the use of random source dogs and cats in research www.national-academies.org. Available in: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK32671/pdf/TOC.pdf

  7. Coelho PG, Granjeiro JM, Romanos GE, Suzuki M, Silva NR, Cardaropolli G et al. Basic research methods and current trends of dental implants surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009; 88 (2): 579-596.

  8. Rodríguez E. Desafíos éticos de la investigación con animales, manipulación genética. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Pública. 2012; 29 (4): 535-540.

  9. Bate M. The dog as an experimental animal. ANZCCART News [Internet]. 1997 [Consultado el 11 de marzo de 2015]; 10 (1): 1-8. Available in: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/publications/TheDog_12Arch.pdf

  10. Garcés LF, Giraldo C. Bioética en la experimentación científica con animales: cuestión de reglamentación o de actitud humana. Revista Lasallista de Investigación [Internet]. 2012 [Consultado el 5 de marzo de 2015]; 91: 159-166. Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=69524955012.

  11. Mapara M, Thomas BS, Bhat KM. Rabbit as an animal model for experimental research. Den Res J. 2012; 9 (1): 111-118.

  12. Biological evaluation of medical devices-part 6: tests for local effects after implantation [Internet]. ISO 10993-6:1994 [accesado 15 de octubre de 2013]. Available in: ftp://law.resource.org/ie/ibr/is.en.iso.10993.6.2009.pdf

  13. Cook LJ. The dog as translational model for orthopaedic disorders. Orthopaedic Research Society, Annual Meeting Feb 2012. Available in: http://www.ors.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/02/Workshop-7-Handout.pdf

  14. Huja SS, Fernández SA, Hill KJ, Li Y. Remodeling dynamics in the alveolar process in skeletally mature dogs. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol. 2006; 288 (12): 1243-1249.

  15. Kilkenny C, Browne W, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines. British Journal of Pharmacology. 2010; 160 (7): 1577-1579.

  16. Albuquerque C, Morinha F, Requicha J, Martins T, Dias I, Guedes-Pinto H et al. Canine periodontitis: the dog as an important model for periodontal studies. The Veterinary Journal. 2012; 191 (3): 299-305.

  17. Patronek GJ, Waters DJ, Glickman LT. Comparative longevity of pet dogs and humans: implications for gerontology research. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1997; 52 (3): 171-B178.

  18. Duffy LD, Serpell AJ. Center for the interaction of animals and society, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania. Non reproductive effects of spaying and neutering on behavior in dogs, proceedings of the third international symposium on non-surgical contraceptive methods for pet population control [Internet]. 2006 [consultado mayo 2013]. Available in: http://www.saveourdogs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Aggression-and-spay-neuter-in-dogs.pdf

  19. Kustritz R. Effects of surgical sterilization on canine and feline health and society. Reprod Dom Anim. 2012; 47 (suppl. 4): 214-222.

  20. Reece WO. Dukes’ physiology of domestic animals. 12th edition. San Diego: Cornell University Press; 2004: pp. 621-742.

  21. Weitzmann MN, Pacifici R. Estrogen deficiency and bone loss: an inflamatory tale. J Clin Invest. 2006; 116: 1186-1194.

  22. Ohlsson C, Börjesson AE, Vandenput L. Sex steroids and bone health in men. BoneKEy Reports 1. 2012; 2. doi:10.1038/bonekey.2012.3

  23. Belic M, Kusek V, Ante S, Juraj G, Mirna R, Zoran V et al. The influence of sex on biomechanical markers of bone turnover in dogs. Research in Veterinary. 2012; 93: 918-920.

  24. Morris TR. Experimental design an analysis in animal science. New York, NY: CABI Publishing; 2002: pp. 31-41.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com