Risk of bias of animal studies on regenerative procedures for periodontal and peri-implant bone defects - a systematic review

Animal Experiments in Periodontal and Peri-Implant Research: Are There Any Changes?

Animal experiments are a source of debate. This bibliometric study aims to identify published research in two representative dental journals: the Journal of Periodontology (JP) and the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JCP). Two time points (1982/83 and 2012/13) covering 30 years were chosen. Articles describing data from animal experiments were identified and the data were extracted and compared between journals and time points. In 1982/83, 27 animal studies were published in JP and 17 in JCP. For 2012/13, 54 animal studies were considered in JP and 37 in JCP. The species examined were predominantly dogs (37%) in JCP and rats (61%) in JP in 1982/83. In 2012/13, rodents accounted for 85% in JP and for 54% in JCP. The number of animals used per study increased by a factor of 1.6-2.6. The diversity of geographic origin and articles from emerging countries increased over time. The number of animals examined per study and the publications describing these experiments seemed to have increased in the journals analyzed in the last decades.

Efficacy of stem cells on the healing of peri-implant defects: systematic review of preclinical studies

This systematic review considers the evidence from animal studies evaluating the effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) in the treatment of intraoral peri-implant defects. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS databases were searched for quantitative preclinical controlled animal model studies that evaluated the effect of MSC on bone healing at intraoral peri-implant bone defects. The primary outcome was the amount of (re-)osseointegration reported as bone-to-implant contact in the defect area. The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Only one study induced peri-implant inflammation to produce peri-implant bone defects. In all others, defects were surgically created at implant installation. Differences in defect morphology were identified among the studies. Both xenogenous and autogenous MSC were used to treat peri-implant defects. These included bone marrow-derived MSC, periodontal ligament-derived MSC, umbilical cord MSC, bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells, and peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Meta-analysis was not possible because of heterogeneities in study designs. Nonetheless, in most studies, local MSC implantation was not associated with adverse effects and had a positive effect on bone healing around peri-implant defects. Combination of MSC with membranes and bioactive factors appears to provide improved treatment outcomes. In large animal models, intraoral use of MSC may provide beneficial effects on bone healing within peri-implant defects. The various degrees of success of MSC in peri-implant bone healing are likely to be related to the use of cells from various populations, tissues, and donor species. However, human safety and efficacy must be demonstrated before its clinical use can be considered.

Ethical guidelines, animal profile, various animal models used in periodontal research with alternatives and future perspectives

Laboratory animal models serve as a facilitator to investigate the etiopathogenesis of periodontal disease, are used to know the efficacy of reconstructive and regenerative procedures, and are also helpful in evaluation of newer therapeutic techniques including laser and implant therapies prior to application in the human beings. The aim of this review is to know the different animal models used in various specialties of dental research and to know the ethical guidelines prior to the usage of experimental models with main emphasis on how to refine, replace, and reduce the number of animal models usage in the laboratory. An online search for experimental animal models used in dental research was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed database. Publications from 2009 to May 2013 in the specialty of periodontics were included in writing this review. A total of 652 references were published in PubMed/MEDLINE databases based on the search terms used. Out of 245 studies, 241 were related to the periodontal research published in English from 2009 to 2013. Relevant papers were chosen according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After extensive electronic and hand search on animal models, it has been observed that various animal models were used in dental research. Search on animal models used for dental research purpose revealed that various animals such as rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbit, beagle dogs, goats, and nonhuman primates were extensively used. However, with the new advancement of ex vivo animal models, it has become easy to investigate disease pathogenesis and to test the efficacy of newer therapeutic modalities with the reduced usage of animal models. This review summarized the large amount of literature on animal models used in periodontal research with main emphasis on ethical guidelines and on reducing the animal model usage in future perspective.

SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies

Background

Systematic Reviews (SRs) of experimental animal studies are not yet common practice, but awareness of the merits of conducting such SRs is steadily increasing. As animal intervention studies differ from randomized clinical trials (RCT) in many aspects, the methodology for SRs of clinical trials needs to be adapted and optimized for animal intervention studies. The Cochrane Collaboration developed a Risk of Bias (RoB) tool to establish consistency and avoid discrepancies in assessing the methodological quality of RCTs. A similar initiative is warranted in the field of animal experimentation.

Methods

We provide an RoB tool for animal intervention studies (SYRCLE’s RoB tool). This tool is based on the Cochrane RoB tool and has been adjusted for aspects of bias that play a specific role in animal intervention studies. To enhance transparency and applicability, we formulated signalling questions to facilitate judgment.

Results

The resulting RoB tool for animal studies contains 10 entries. These entries are related to selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and other biases. Half these items are in agreement with the items in the Cochrane RoB tool. Most of the variations between the two tools are due to differences in design between RCTs and animal studies. Shortcomings in, or unfamiliarity with, specific aspects of experimental design of animal studies compared to clinical studies also play a role.

Conclusions

SYRCLE’s RoB tool is an adapted version of the Cochrane RoB tool. Widespread adoption and implementation of this tool will facilitate and improve critical appraisal of evidence from animal studies. This may subsequently enhance the efficiency of translating animal research into clinical practice and increase awareness of the necessity of improving the methodological quality of animal studies.