Experimentation reveals Hmong medicine boosts bone repair in periodontitis, highlighting potential clinical benefits.
Periodontitis is the number one cause of adult tooth loss worldwide. The main treatments for periodontitis are removed tartar, surgery, and medication, but none of them can bring about a cure. Traditional Chinese medicine as an adjunct to modulation of the host immune response in the treatment of periodontitis needs to be further researched and explored. This study investigated the effect of Hmong Medicine Tooth-fixing Formula (HM-TF) on periosteal bone repair in vivo and in vitro to provide an experimental basis for the use of the Hmong medicine in the clinical treatment of periodontitis. Screening of HM-TF and periodontitis co-action targets by network pharmacology analysis. The effects of HM-TF on the proliferation and differentiation of osteoblasts and osteoclasts were investigated by CCK-8 assay, Real-time qPCR, western blotting, ALP, alizarin red S, and TRAP staining. A rat periodontitis model was established, and micro-computed tomography (CT) and hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining experiments were carried out to study the effect of HM-TF on bone repair and investigate its biosafety. The core active ingredients of HM-TF for treating periodontitis include quercetin, luteolin, kaempferol, etc. One of the main targets of HM-TF in periodontitis is RXRα, and all the active ingredients can effectively bind to RXRα. HM-TF enhanced the growth of osteoblasts by increasing the production of RXRα and factors related to bone formation. Additionally, it hindered the development of osteoclasts by reducing the expression of factors related to osteoclasts. Three-dimensional (3D) micro-CT, HE staining and immunohistochemical staining showed that HM-TF ameliorated the alveolar bone destruction caused by periodontitis in rats, and the effect was better than that of metronidazole. One of the main intersecting targets of HM-TF and periodontitis is RXRα. HM-TF promoted bone repair in rats with periodontitis and had good biocompatibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dong et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: