ropn protein (R&D Systems)
Structured Review

Ropn Protein, supplied by R&D Systems, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 95/100, based on 71 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/ropn protein/product/R&D Systems
Average 95 stars, based on 71 article reviews
Images
1) Product Images from "Osteopontin on the Dental Implant Surface Promotes Direct Osteogenesis in Osseointegration"
Article Title: Osteopontin on the Dental Implant Surface Promotes Direct Osteogenesis in Osseointegration
Journal: International Journal of Molecular Sciences
doi: 10.3390/ijms23031039
Figure Legend Snippet: H&E-staining and OPN-immunoreactivity in the tissues surrounding the implants in the WT mice. ( a , g , m ) H&E-staining in the tissues surrounding the implants at day 5 after implant placement in the control, rOPN, and HABP-OPNpep groups. The infiltration of inflammatory cells and spindle-shaped or flattened cells is observed at the bone-implant interface. ( d , j , p ) There is a weak OPN positive immunoreaction at the bottom parts of threads and the cement lines of the pre-existing bone (arrowheads). ( b , c , h , i , n , o ) The formation of direct osteogenesis is clearly observed at week 1 (arrows) and week 2. ( e , f , k , l , q , r ) OPN-immunoreactivity gradually becomes intense (arrowheads) and elongates along the implant surface at week 2. B, bone. Scale bar = 50 μm.
Techniques Used: Staining, Control
Figure Legend Snippet: Azan-staining, OPN-immunoreactivity, and the rates of direct osteogenesis or OPN-positive perimeters in the WT mice. ( a – f ) Azan-staining in the tissues surrounding the implants at 2 weeks after implant placement in the rOPN, RGDS, and control groups. Partially, indirect osteogenesis progresses from the pre-existing bone in addition to the direct osteogenesis to achieve osseointegration at week 2. ( d – f ) are higher magnifications of the boxed areas in ( a – c ), respectively. ( g – i ) The OPN-immunoreactive lines coincide with the places where the direct osteogenesis occurs, although some areas lack the OPN reaction. ( j ) Quantification of the rates of direct osteogenesis and OPN-positive perimeters in rOPN ( n = 5), RGDS ( n = 5), OPNpep ( n = 5), HABP-OPNpep ( n = 5), and control ( n = 3) groups. The RGDS and HABP-OPNpep groups without following normal distribution were compared by Kruskal–Wallis test followed by the Bonferroni test for multiple comparisons for more than three groups or Mann–Whitney U test for two groups. In the rOPN group, the OPN-positive perimeter around the implant surface significantly increases compared with that in the RGDS and HABP-OPNpep groups at week 2 and shows the highest rate compared with other groups. The OPN-positive perimeter in the OPNpep group is higher than that in the RGDS group. Statistical analysis used a two-tailed Student’s t -test or Mann–Whitney U test. As to the percentage of the vertical axis, the numerator is direct osteogenesis or OPN-positive perimeter around implant surface and the denominator is the perimeter of external surface of implant body. The rates are the mean + SD. IS, implant space. Scale bars = ( a – c ) 500, ( d – i ) 50 μm.
Techniques Used: Staining, Control, MANN-WHITNEY, Two Tailed Test