JDR JDR Most Read Articles
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (24)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bartlett, J.D.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, C.E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bartlett, J.D.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, C.E.

Decreased Mineral Content in MMP-20 Null Mouse Enamel is Prominent During the Maturation Stage

J.D. Bartlett1,*, E. Beniash2, D.H. Lee1, and C.E. Smith3

1 Department of Cytokine Biology and 2 Department of Biomineralization, The Forsyth Institute, 140 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115, USA; and
3 Laboratory for the Study of Calcified Tissues and Biomaterials, Faculté de médecine dentaire, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada H3C 3J7;



View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Normalized FTIR absorption spectra of enamel from wild-type (solid line) and MMP-20 null mice (dashed line), collected in ATR (A) and reflectance modes (B). Amide I protein band and {nu}3 PO4 band are shown. Enamel from 4 null and 4 control teeth were analyzed.

 


View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. Means plots ± 95% confidence intervals of enamel mineral (ash) weight (A), protein content (B), mineral-to-protein (M:P) ratios (C), and percent mineral by weight (D) for wild-type (circles) vs. MMP-20 null (squares) incisors as a function of developmental stage (S, secretory; EM, early mature; NM, nearly mature). Differences in mineral content magnify as enamel development proceeds (A, S -> NM), and more protein appears to be retained in the nearly mature enamel of the MMP-20 null mice (B, NM). Ratio (C) and percent mineral by weight (D) differences are significant only relative to nearly mature enamel (NM; see also TableGo), when MMP-20 is not normally expressed (N values are provided in the TableGo).

 


View larger version (12K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 3. Box chart representing Knoop microhardness data for enamel from 2 maxillary incisors each from MMP-20 null mice (KO) and wild-type mice (WT). The Y-axis shows Knoop hardness numbers (KHN). The boxes outline the 25–75% data range, whiskers represent the standard deviation, squares in the boxes correspond to the mean hardness value, crosses (X) delimit the 99% data range, and hyphens (-) represent minimum and maximum hardness values. Average hardness for wild-type enamel (WTenamel) is 327 KHN10 (SD ± 70) and 207 KHN10 (SD ± 63) for MMP-20 null enamel (KOenamel). Student’s t test analysis demonstrated that the two means were significantly different (p = 0.005).

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
IADR Journals Advances in Dental Research ®
Journal of Dental Research ® Critical Reviews (1990-2004)
Copyright © 2004 Institutional Access Guidelines