Non‐Human Primates Used in Studies of Periodontal Disease Pathogenesis: A Review of the Literature
Authors: Schou Søren , Holmstrup Palle , Kornman Kenneth S. 
Published: March 2012

The inability to examine initiation and progression of periodontal disease and to assess certain therapies in humans has led to a great interest in the use of animal models in periodontal research. Some of the most prominent animals used are non‐human primates. This article reviews the characteristics of non‐human primate models in periodontal health, in the transition from health to gingivitis to Periodontitis, and in experimental gingivitis and periodontitis. Where possible, the results of these studies are compared with results from human studies. Only a few studies have compared in detail the anatomy, physiology, immunology, and tissue interactions in monkeys with those of humans. With the exceptions of differences and variations in size of the dentition, the number of each tooth type as well as larger canines, presence of diastemata between anterior teeth, and an edge‐to‐edge relationship of the incisors, the dental and periodontal anatomy of nonhuman primates seem quite similar to that of humans. Clinically healthy gingiva can be established and maintained in non‐human primates, and gingivitis as well as Periodontitis occur in these animals. It is possible to induce experimental periodontitis by placement of peri‐dental silk ligatures or orthodontic elastics as well as by surgical removal of alveolar bone. Although the most appropriate model for studies of periodontal disease pathogenesis in non‐human primates appears to involve the application of silk ligatures, some difficulties may occur in establishing periodontal break‐down by using this model. Many clinical, histological, microbiological, and immunological characteristics of spontaneous and experimental marginal inflammation in most non‐human primates are similar to those in humans. The most significant differences between small non‐human primates and humans are the very limited number of lymphocytes and plasma cells in the inflammatory infiltrate of squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and marmosets. Therefore, the use of squirrel monkeys and marmosets may not be appropriate in many studies of periodontal disease pathogenesis. The most significant microbial differences between macaque species and humans are a lower proportion of Actinomyces species, the presence of a catalase‐producing Prevotella melaninogenica strain, and the high carrier rate for Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans in subgingival plaque of macaque species. The significance of these differences is presently unknown. It is concluded that the use of many non‐human primate species due to the apparent close anatomic and biologic similarities to humans is appropriate in experimental studies of periodontal disease, provided the use of laboratory animals is requisite and lower species are not applicable. The increasing use of captive‐born instead of wild‐captured primates as laboratory animals will eliminate many of the problems that plagued researchers heretofore due to greater homogeneity in age, body weight, and dental health status combined with a known medical story of captive‐born animals. J Periodontol 1993; 64:497–508.