Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sodium Trimetaphosphate As A Novel Strategy For Matrix Metalloproteinase Inhibition and Dentin Remineralization
Sodium Trimetaphosphate As A Novel Strategy For Matrix Metalloproteinase Inhibition and Dentin Remineralization
www.karger.com/cre
Downloaded by:
1 2 3
Dentin block 1/3 of the block was 1/3 of the block was
covered with acid- covered with acid-
Fig. 1. Dentin specimen preparation for pH resistant varnish resistant varnish
(control area) (demineralized area)
cycling method. Schematic shows areas
protected by acid-resistant varnish before 1. Control area 2. Demineralized area 3. Treated area
demineralization and treatment with sodi-
um trimetaphosphate.
line (specific MMP inhibitor) [Toth et al., 2012]. After incubation, alization with 90 ± 30 μm depth was obtained, which was con-
gels were stained in 0.1% Coomassie Brilliant Blue R-25 for 30 min firmed by transversal microradiographic analysis (PW2233/20,
and destained (30% methanol, 10% acetic acid diluted in DW). The Philips, Kassel, Germany). After that, the dentin surface was cov-
gelatinolytic activity could be detected as clear bands. The gels ered again to leave only 1/3 of its area exposed, and specimens were
were scanned (Imagescanner, Amersham Biosciences, Uppsala, treated with different concentrations of STMP. Therefore, each
Sweden) and bands evaluated by densitometry (arbitrary units) surface was divided into 3 areas: (1) mineralized – 1/3 of the area
using the software ImageJ (Research Services Branch, National In- was covered with acid-resistant varnish and not exposed to the de-
stitutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). Experiments were per- mineralization solution nor STMP treatment; (2) demineral-
formed in triplicate, and the STMP inhibition was expressed as ized – after demineralization, this area was covered with acid-re-
percentage according to the activity of MMPs without pretreat- sistant varnish in order to avoid contact with the STMP treatment
ment with STMP (negative control). solutions; and (3) demineralized and treated with STMP – after
demineralization, the dentin surface was submitted to STMP treat-
Microhardness Analysis ment solutions as described below (Fig. 1).
This methodology was performed to evaluate the remineraliza-
tion ability of STMP solutions that presented complete inhibition pH Cycling
of MMPs-2 and -9 in zymography analysis. Forty dentin blocks After demineralization and covering 2/3 of the dentin surface
(4.0 × 4.0 × 6.0 mm) were obtained from buccal cervical root bo- with acid-resistant varnish, specimens were randomly distributed
vine incisors using a slow-speed diamond saw (Isomet 1000, according to the treatment (n = 10): 1.5, 3.5, and 5% STMP solu-
Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) under water cooling. Surfaces were tions or deionized water (DW). All specimens were submitted to
wet-polished with 600- and 800-grit SiC paper (Extec Corp., En- pH cycling alternating the demineralization (1.5 mM CaCl2, 0.9 mM
field, CT, USA) in low speed and 1,200-grit SiC paper in high speed KH2PO4, 50 mM lactic buffer, pH 5.0, 8 h) and remineralization
using a polishing machine (AROPOL E, Arotec Industria e Co- solutions (5 mM CaCl2, 0.9 mM KH2PO4, 130 mM KCl, 20 mM
mércio Ltda, Cotia, SP, Brazil). The final polishing was performed Hepes, 5 mM NaN3, pH 7.0, 16 h) for 7 days [Lagerweij and ten Cate,
with 1-μm diamond paste and wet felt wheels (Extec Corp.). The 2006]. During the pH cycling, prior to the incubation with the re-
surface microhardness (SH) was measured at baseline to select mineralization solution, dentin surfaces were treated with 30 mL of
specimens with 32 ± 3 Knoop hardness number (KHN) for further one of the STMP solutions or DW for 10 min. The STMP solutions
experiments. The measurements were performed using a micro- were freshly prepared. Since protein phosphorylation with STMP
hardness tester (Instron 3342, Buehler, Chicago, IL, USA) and the requires alkaline hydrolysis into linear form, the STMP was hydro-
software BlueHill Lite (version 2.25, Buehler), with a Knoop in- lyzed at pH 12 for 5 h followed by neutralization to pH 7.4 [Shen,
denter set with 10 g static load for 10 s. 1966]. The pH was monitored periodically to assure its stability,
which was necessary to validate the test conditions. In addition, af-
Caries-Like Lesion Formation ter the exposure to the STMP solution, dentin specimens were im-
One-third of each surface of the specimens were covered with mersed in a saturated solution of Ca(OH)2 (30 mL, for 10 min).
2 consecutive layers of acid-resistant varnish (nail polish, Revlon
International Corp., New York, NY, USA), and dentin specimens Dentin Hardness Analysis
were subjected to demineralization (Fig. 1). To demineralize the After the pH cycling, the remineralization potential of STMP
dentin and produce caries-like lesions, the specimens were im- was assessed by modifications on dentin microhardness. Hardness
mersed in 30 mL of 50 mM acetate buffer solution containing 2.2 analysis was performed as described above for the selection of den-
mM CaCl2 and 2.2 mM KH2PO4 at pH 5.0 for 7 days [ten Cate and tin specimens (baseline). For the SH assessment, acid-resistant
Duijsters, 1982; Moron et al., 2013]. A subsurface dentin deminer- varnish was removed and all the 3 areas of each specimen were
133.6.82.173 - 1/19/2018 2:34:55 PM
106 kDa
96 kDa
92 kDa (Pro MMP-9)
77 kDa (Act MMP-9)
72 kDa (Pro MMP-2)
52 kDa 66 kDa (Act MMP-2)
I II III
Control 0.5% STMP Representative image
a 1.5%, 3.5% and 5% STMP
80
60
Inhibition, %
MMP-2
MMP-9
40
20
10
0 0
0
Negative 0.5% STMP 1.5% STMP 3.5% STMP 5% STMP Positive
b control control
Fig. 2. Representative image of zymograms (a) and gelatinolytic and MMP-9 (67 kDa), respectively. Incubation with 3.5 or 5%
enzyme activities (percentage of inhibition) (b) obtained after STMP resulted in similar zymograms as 1.5% STMP (data not
electrophoresis showing the effect of different concentrations of shown). Negative control, MMP activities without pretreatment
STMP on the gelatinolytic activity of MMPs-2 and -9. I MMPs in- with STMP; positive control, MMP activities with pretreatment
cubated without STMP (control). II The effect of 0.5% STMP on with 1,10-phenanthroline (specific MMP inhibitor). STMP, sodi-
gelatinolytic enzyme activities. III Gelatinolytic activity when incu- um trimetaphosphate; MMP, matrix metalloproteinase; Pro, pro-
bated with 1.5% STMP. In all gels: lane 1, standard molecular- active; Act, active.
weight marker; lanes 2 and 3, purified human MMP-2 (66 kDa)
tested in triplicate and applying the indenter in the center of the ments. For this assessment, dentin specimens were embedded in
area, with a distance of 100 μm between each indentation. Results acrylic resin and gradually polished as described above. Three se-
were expressed as difference in KHN between mineralized surface ries of indentations were done at 7 different depths from the den-
× demineralized and mineralized surface × STMP treatment. After tin surface (10, 30, 50, 70, 90, 110, and 220 μm) in the central region
SH evaluation, dentin specimens were longitudinally sectioned, of each area. The indentations were spaced 100 μm from each oth-
using a double-sided floppy diamond disk Ø 22 mm (KG Sorensen er. SH and CSH data were calculated and statistically analyzed with
Ind. and Com., Cotia, SP, Brazil) at low speed and under intense a statistics software (Statsoft®, Tulsa, OK, USA). The assumptions
water cooling, and each half-block was used for CSH measure- of normal distribution and of equality of variances were evaluated
133.6.82.173 - 1/19/2018 2:34:55 PM
Parameters Mean ± SD
Treatment Substrates
mineralized/ mineralized/
demineralized treated
0 0
–20 –20
Hardness, %
Hardness, %
–40 –40
–60 –60
–80 –80
–100 –100
–120 –120
10 30 50 70 90 110 220 10 30 50 70 90 110 220
Depth, μm Depth, μm
0 0
–20 –20
Hardness, %
Hardness, %
–40 –40
–60 –60
–80 –80
Demineralized
–100 –100
Treated
–120 –120
10 30 50 70 90 110 220 10 30 50 70 90 110 220
Depth, μm Depth, μm
Fig. 4. Cross-sectional hardness (mean, %) at different depths in dentin blocks, demineralized and treated or not
with different concentrations of STMP. STMP, sodium trimetaphosphate.
lenge, a mean mineral loss rate of 65% was detected for all duced. On the other hand, regardless of STMP concentra-
groups, without significant differences between them tion used, all treated areas showed a potential of STMP to
(Table 2). Only 1.5% STMP treatment was able to reduce aid the remineralization of the lesion in relation to the
mineral loss (p < 0.05), which was not detected for any demineralized condition. However, only 1.5% SMTP was
other tested concentration. No significant change in SH able to significantly reverse the lesion formed, which can
was verified when dentin specimens were treated with 3.5 be observed in Figure 4 up to a depth of 90 μm. However,
or 5% STMP, DW (control), or when compared to the in the 3.5 and 5% groups, surprisingly, these concentra-
demineralized condition (Table 2). tions impaired the remineralization process (Fig. 4).
Regarding the CSH analysis, similar values of lesion Moreover, no statistically significant differences were
depth were observed for all specimens in the demineral- found between 3.5 and 5% STMP for changes in lesion
ized condition, showing a homogeneous subsurface le- depth.
sion depth. When the specimens were treated with DW,
it is notable that there is an overlap of the lines (deminer- Polarized Light Microscopy
alized and treated condition) (Fig. 4). This performance Figure 5 shows representative photomicrographs ob-
attests that DW had no effect on reversing the lesion pro- tained using polarized light microscopy (PLM). The im-
133.6.82.173 - 1/19/2018 2:34:55 PM
*
Fig. 5. Polarized light photomicrograph
(×5) of the 3 different areas according to
the dentin condition (mineralized; demin-
eralized; demineralized + treated) with dis-
tilled water (control) (a); 1.5% STMP (b);
and 3.5%/5% STMP (c) – representative
image. Asterisk, subsurface lesion. STMP, c
sodium trimetaphosphate.