Thays Crosara Abrahão Cunha , Ana Claudia Gontijo Couto , Eduardo Januzzi , Rafael Tardin Rosa Ferraz Gonçalves , Graziella Silva , Cassia Regina Silva
{"title":"不同商业品牌肉毒杆菌神经毒素a对福尔马林引起的小鼠口面部疼痛的镇痛潜力","authors":"Thays Crosara Abrahão Cunha , Ana Claudia Gontijo Couto , Eduardo Januzzi , Rafael Tardin Rosa Ferraz Gonçalves , Graziella Silva , Cassia Regina Silva","doi":"10.1016/j.toxcx.2021.100083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The use of botulinum neurotoxin-A (BoNT-A) is an alternative for the management of orofacial pain disorders. Although only Botox has labeled, there are other commercial brands available for use, among them: Dysport, Botulift, Prosigne, and Xeomin. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the possible differences in the antinociceptive effect evoked by different commercially available formulations of BoNT-A in an animal model of inflammatory orofacial pain induced by formalin injection. Male C57/BL6 mice (20–25 g) were submitted to the pre-treatment with five different commercial brands of BoNT-A (Botox, Botulift, Xeomin, Dysport, or Prosigne; with doses between 0.02 and 0.2 Units of Botulinum Toxin, in 20 μL of 0.9% saline) three days prior the 2% formalin injection. All injections were made subcutaneously into the right perinasal area. After formalin injections, nociceptive behaviors like rubbing the place of injection were quantified during the neurogenic (0–5 min) and inflammatory (15–30 min) phases. The treatment using Botox, Botulift, and Xeomin were able to induce antinociceptive effects in both phases of the formalin-induced pain animal model, however, Dysport and Prosigne reduced the response in neither of them. Our data suggest that the treatment using different formulations of BoNT-A is not similar in efficacy as analgesics when evaluated in formalin-induced orofacial pain in mice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37124,"journal":{"name":"Toxicon: X","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.toxcx.2021.100083","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analgesic potential of different available commercial brands of botulinum neurotoxin-A in formalin-induced orofacial pain in mice\",\"authors\":\"Thays Crosara Abrahão Cunha , Ana Claudia Gontijo Couto , Eduardo Januzzi , Rafael Tardin Rosa Ferraz Gonçalves , Graziella Silva , Cassia Regina Silva\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.toxcx.2021.100083\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The use of botulinum neurotoxin-A (BoNT-A) is an alternative for the management of orofacial pain disorders. Although only Botox has labeled, there are other commercial brands available for use, among them: Dysport, Botulift, Prosigne, and Xeomin. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the possible differences in the antinociceptive effect evoked by different commercially available formulations of BoNT-A in an animal model of inflammatory orofacial pain induced by formalin injection. Male C57/BL6 mice (20–25 g) were submitted to the pre-treatment with five different commercial brands of BoNT-A (Botox, Botulift, Xeomin, Dysport, or Prosigne; with doses between 0.02 and 0.2 Units of Botulinum Toxin, in 20 μL of 0.9% saline) three days prior the 2% formalin injection. All injections were made subcutaneously into the right perinasal area. After formalin injections, nociceptive behaviors like rubbing the place of injection were quantified during the neurogenic (0–5 min) and inflammatory (15–30 min) phases. The treatment using Botox, Botulift, and Xeomin were able to induce antinociceptive effects in both phases of the formalin-induced pain animal model, however, Dysport and Prosigne reduced the response in neither of them. Our data suggest that the treatment using different formulations of BoNT-A is not similar in efficacy as analgesics when evaluated in formalin-induced orofacial pain in mice.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37124,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Toxicon: X\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.toxcx.2021.100083\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Toxicon: X\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590171021000199\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Toxicon: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590171021000199","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Analgesic potential of different available commercial brands of botulinum neurotoxin-A in formalin-induced orofacial pain in mice
The use of botulinum neurotoxin-A (BoNT-A) is an alternative for the management of orofacial pain disorders. Although only Botox has labeled, there are other commercial brands available for use, among them: Dysport, Botulift, Prosigne, and Xeomin. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the possible differences in the antinociceptive effect evoked by different commercially available formulations of BoNT-A in an animal model of inflammatory orofacial pain induced by formalin injection. Male C57/BL6 mice (20–25 g) were submitted to the pre-treatment with five different commercial brands of BoNT-A (Botox, Botulift, Xeomin, Dysport, or Prosigne; with doses between 0.02 and 0.2 Units of Botulinum Toxin, in 20 μL of 0.9% saline) three days prior the 2% formalin injection. All injections were made subcutaneously into the right perinasal area. After formalin injections, nociceptive behaviors like rubbing the place of injection were quantified during the neurogenic (0–5 min) and inflammatory (15–30 min) phases. The treatment using Botox, Botulift, and Xeomin were able to induce antinociceptive effects in both phases of the formalin-induced pain animal model, however, Dysport and Prosigne reduced the response in neither of them. Our data suggest that the treatment using different formulations of BoNT-A is not similar in efficacy as analgesics when evaluated in formalin-induced orofacial pain in mice.