{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.202479338842975, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative analyses of the soft tissue interfaces around teeth and implants: Insights from a pre-clinical implant model.

AIM
To evaluate the similarities and differences in barrier function of a peri-implant epithelium (PIE) versus a native junctional epithelium (JE).


MATERIALS AND METHODS
A mouse model was used wherein titanium implants were placed sub-occlusally in healed extraction sites. The PIE was examined at multiple timepoints after implant placement, to capture and understand the temporal nature of its assembly and homeostatic status. Mitotic activity, hemidesmosomal attachment apparatus, and inflammatory responses in the PIE were compared against a JE. Additionally, we evaluated whether the PIE developed a Wnt-responsive stem cell niche like a JE.


RESULTS
The PIE developed from oral epithelium (OE) that had, by the time of implant placement, lost all characteristics of a JE. Compared with a JE, an established PIE had more proliferating cells, exhibited lower expression of attachment proteins, and had significantly more inflammatory cells in the underlying connective tissue. Wnt-responsive cells in the OE contributed to an initial PIE, but Wnt-responsive cells and their descendants were lost as the PIE matured.


CONCLUSIONS
Although histologically similar, the PIE lacked a Wnt-responsive stem cell niche and exhibited characteristics of a chronically inflamed tissue. Both features contributed to suboptimal barrier functions of the PIE compared with a native JE.