The use of a polycaprolactone-tricalcium phosphate scaffold for bone regeneration of tooth socket facial wall defects and simultaneous immediate dental implant placement in Macaca fascicularis

Bone regeneration and aesthetic outcomes may be compromised when immediate implants are placed at extraction sites with dehiscence defects. The aim of this study was to compare, in a monkey model, peri-implant bone regeneration and implant stability after immediate implant placement into tooth sockets with facial wall defects in two treatment groups. In eight control monkeys, the bony defect was reconstructed with autogenous particulate bone, whereas in 10 test monkeys a polycaprolactone–tricalcium phosphate (PCL–TCP) scaffold was used. The monkeys were sacrificed after 6 months and the specimens were analyzed by histology and histomorphometry. Better maintenance of facial bone contour was noted in the test group; however, bone regeneration was seen only at areas adjacent to a bony wall of the defect. The mean bone-to-implant contact was 27.6 ± 19.1% (control group) versus 6.8 ± 7.9% (test group). The mean bone area percentage was 11.8 ± 10.1% (control group) versus 6.8 ± 6.9% (test group). Implant survival was 100% at 6 months for both the groups. It was concluded that although the use of a PCL–TCP scaffold showed better maintenance of the alveolar contour as compared to autogenous particulate bone at 6 months, there was minimal bone regeneration within the defect

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field