Table 1 Summary of the studies on animal models
Author, study type | Procedure and animal type | Group and study type | Key results |
|---|---|---|---|
Sherif et al. 2016 RCT | 20 rats, bilateral extractions | Test group: 2.5% SIM gel Control: no treatment Rats sacrificed at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th week Buccolingual ridge width measured with bone calipers | Single topical application of 2.5% simvastatin gel improves the quality of the new bone of the healing extraction socket and decreases bone resorption |
Wu et al. 2008 RCT | 60 rats, extraction | Test group (30): SIM 1 mg/1 ml PLGA scaffold Control: PLGA Rats sacrificed at 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Histology and BMD examination | Higher bone formation rate and quality were found during the extraction socket healing in the experimental group than in the control group at all time points except for 1 week |
Vaziri et al. 2007 RCT | 49 rats, bilateral ovariectomy | 7 groups with ligature placed in all except 1 (sham) Group 1 (N = 7), ovariectomy (OVX) plus simvastatin (10–6 M); group 2 (N = 7), OVX plus simvastatin (3·10–7 M); group 3 (N = 7), OVX plus simvastatin (10–7 M); group 4 (N = 7), OVX plus normal saline; group 5 (N = 7), OVX group; group 6 (N = 7), ligature without OVX; group 7 (N = 7), sham surgery without OVX and ligature. Sacrificed after 4 weeks. Radiologic and histologic analysis. Bone loss, attachment loss | Simvastatin inhibits periodontal attachment loss with the least in 10–6 M group. 3·10–7 M had the least effect on the inhibition. Local application of simvastatin shows protective features against the impact of periodontitis on attachment apparatus and alveolar bone |
Killeen et al. 2012 RCT Split-mouth study | 65 rats, fenestration defects | Test group: 0.5 mg simvastatin in ethanol (SIM-EtOH); 2) 0.5 mg simvastatin in alendronate–cyclodextrin conjugate (SIM-ALN-CD); control group: 3) EtOH alone; 4) ALN-CD alone; or 5) no injections. Sacrificed at 21 days, 48 days. Histometric analysis | Twofold to threefold more new bone width (0.004) was seen in the fenestration defect treatment with the use of systemic ALN after SIM-EtOH injections as compared to local SIM/ALN-CD preparations or short-term SIM-EtOH injections |
Kiliç E et al. 2008 RCT | 18 rabbits, unilateral distraction osteogenesis | Experimental group I: 2.5 mg/ml of SIM/0.2 g of gelatin sponge applied locally Experimental group II: 10 mg SIM systemically Control: no treatment Sacrificed at 14 days Peripheral quantitative computed tomography, and with histomorphometry | No SSD in the amount of regenerate bone during distraction osteogenesis between the systemic simvastatin group and control group or between the local simvastatin group and control group |
Rutledge et al. 2011 Split-mouth study | 4 beagle dogs, dehiscence defects bilaterally | Local placement of porous HA-collagen grafts with resorbable membranes with or without 10 mg SIM followed by local injections. Sacrificed after 2 months Histomorphometry | Locally injected SIM can induce modest amounts of new bone formation within the dehiscence defects in closed injection sites over a periosteal surface |
Ozec et al. 2007 RCT | 23 rats, critical-sized defects in the mandibles | Experimental group: 2.5 mg/Ml SIM mixed with 0.02 g of gelatin sponge. Passive control Active control: gelatin sponge mixed with water Sacrificed at day 14 Radiology and histology assessment | New bone formation and density of new bone in mandibular defects are more significant in the experimental group than control groups |
Anbinder et al. 2007 RCT/Split mouth | 54 rats, two groups: ovariectomized (OVX) or sham operated | Experimental group: simvastatin (SIN–25 mg/kg), Active control: sodium alendronate (ALN–2 mg/kg) or Passive control: water (control) orally. Sacrificed after 35 days Radiographic bone density measured | No SSD in alveolar bone formation between ALN and SIM group |
George MD et al. 2013 RCT | 32 rats, randomized 5 groups. TMJ inflammation induced | I: Controls II: ETH III: 0.1 mg SIM, 3) IV: 0.5 mg SIM, V: 0.15 mg TH. Time: 28 days H&E | SIM & TH reduced the TMJ articular layer thickness, 0.5 mg decreased inflammation |
Holwegner et al. 2015 RCT | 44 mature rats CFA induced inflammation in right TMJ 6 groups | I: CFA + 0.5 SIM II: CFA + EtOH III: CFA + 0.15 TH IV: CFA + SIM + H V: CFA VI: Control (left) Time: 4 weeks CT, BV, BMD | CFA combination groups: TMJ ramus height > than CFA alone BV:CFA + 0.5 SIM > CFA + SIM + TH Condylar width, bone density: least in steroid grp as compared to SIM |