MATERIALS AND METHODS: The effects of mitragynine on the mRNA and protein expression of COX-1 and COX-2 and the production of prostaglandin E(2) (PGE(2)) were investigated in LPS-treated RAW264.7 macrophage cells. Quantitative RT-PCR was used to assess the mRNA expression of COX-1 and COX-2. Protein expression of COX-1 and COX-2 were assessed using Western blot analysis and the level of PGE(2) production was quantified using Parameter™ PGE(2) Assay (R&D Systems).
RESULTS: Mitragynine produced a significant inhibition on the mRNA expression of COX-2 induced by LPS, in a dose dependent manner and this was followed by the reduction of PGE(2) production. On the other hand, the effects of mitragynine on COX-1 mRNA expression were found to be insignificant as compared to the control cells. However, the effect of mitragynine on COX-1 protein expression is dependent on concentration, with higher concentration of mitragynine producing a further reduction of COX-1 expression in LPS-treated cells.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that mitragynine suppressed PGE(2) production by inhibiting COX-2 expression in LPS-stimulated RAW264.7 macrophage cells. Mitragynine may be useful for the treatment of inflammatory conditions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 231 OSMF patients were selected and treated with basic regime including topical corticosteroids, oral antioxidants and the icecream-stick exercise regime and allotted randomly to two equal groups A and B. Group-A patients were additionally given MED. Subgroups A1 and B1 patients with an inter-incisal distance (IID) 20-35mm were not given any additional therapy; subgroup A2 and B2 patients (IID 20-35mm) were treated additionally with intra-lesional injections. Subgroups A3 and B3 with IID<20mm were managed surgically. IID was measured at baseline and at 6 months recall. The change in IID measurements was calculated and statistically analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and Tukeys multiple post hoc analysis.
RESULTS: Average improvement in IID after six months of recall visits was observed to be 8.4 mm in subgroup-A1 (n-53) compared to 5.5 mm in B1(n-50) (p<0.01). The IID improvement in subgroup-A2 was found to be 9.3mm (n-46) compared to 5.1 mm in B2 (n-48) (p<0.01). In the surgery group, mouth opening improvement was observed to be 9.6 mm in subgroup A3 (n-18) compared to 4.8 mm for B3 (n-16) (p<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Use of the MED appears to be effective for increasing oral opening in OMSF patients in conjunction with local, injection and/or surgical treatment.