Mailing List

Contact Us

Staff

By Brian Fitzgerald

	Thomas Van Dyke, director of clinical research at SDM (right), accepts the patents for H2 antagonist technology from Scott Whalen, director of Procter & Gamble’s oral and personal health-care technology division, at a press conference in April. Photo by Vernon Doucette

Although the American public doesn’t usually think of gum disease as a killer, studies have shown that associated infections can lead to an increased risk of heart disease. At present, however, the BU School of Dental Medicine is working on a therapeutic drug that shows promise in treating gingivitis and periodontitis before the conditions cause other health problems.

With the help of a recent donation from Procter & Gamble of novel oral care technology, SDM is working to refine optimal delivery and absorption of a drug to treat gum disease, with the goal of developing a testable product by October 2004.

This is the first time that BU has accepted a donation of patented technology from a major corporation.

Known as H2 antagonist technology, this Procter & Gamble innovation is designed, says SDM Dean Spencer Frankl, to “replace high-cost surgical procedures with a lower-cost medical alternative for the treatment of periodontal diseases.”

The patents that the company transferred to BU encompass the use of H2 antagonists such as cimetidine and ranitidine to treat gingivitis, an inflammation of the gum along the teeth, and periodontitis, which occurs when gum tissue gradually separates from the tooth and a pocket forms between gum tissue and hard tooth surfaces.

Traditional treatments for these dental problems involve the use of antimicrobial chemicals to kill naturally occurring bacteria in the mouth. But H2 antagonist technology’s target is different: it locally blocks the effects of the chemical histamine. Histamine is released in tissues as a result of inflammation and has been shown to reduce the activity of those cells necessary for a protective response to bacterial invaders, says Thomas Van Dyke, a professor of oral biology and director of clinical research for SDM.

H2 antagonist technology seeks to boost the body’s natural defense mechanisms in both gingivitis and periodontitis, says Van Dyke. “Clinical analyses have indicated that the development of gingivitis and susceptibility to periodontitis are associated with the suppression of the adapted immune response in the gingival tissues,” he says. “The innate immune response, which is the body’s first line of defense against infection, is normally followed by the adaptive immune response, after the body has a chance to respond to the challenge. However, in the case of gingivitis, an exaggerated innate immune response leads to excessive inflammation and tissue damage.”

Once a mouth lesion is established, Van Dyke explains, susceptible individuals with reduced adaptive immunity develop periodontitis. “Work in our laboratories and others has demonstrated that H2 antagonists are multifunctional,” he says. “That is, they suppress the innate immune response and they enhance the adaptive immune response.”

According to Scott Whalen, director of Procter & Gamble’s oral and personal health-care technology division, the new technology could have many benefits to the 15 million Americans who experience significant periodontitis. “It is simple enough to be used as a mouth rinse,” he says. “Second, unlike some antimicrobials, this technology does not cause staining of the teeth. And perhaps the overall major benefit is that it facilitates the natural barrier functions in the gums that prevent soft tissue loss and bone loss from occurring.”

Because Procter & Gamble is currently focusing its oral care research in other areas, it hired an outside consultant to identify the most qualified institution to develop and commercialize the technology. Whalen says that SDM was selected because of its impressive leadership in technology development and commercialization.

“ In our minds, BU was the ideal candidate to further develop this technology,” he says. “Not only because it is dedicated to improving oral health, but because it has a track record in developing new dental technologies.”

Whalen also points out that Van Dyke, who had helped Procter & Gamble scientists develop the technology under a sponsored research agreement, “is the perfect person to see the project through” because of his experience in conducting the clinical trials, and the fact that he is “known worldwide as a leader in his field.”

Ashley Stevens, director of the office of Technology Transfer in the University’s Community Technology Fund, says that in the last six years, patent donations have become much more common as large companies started to give technologies to universities — donating research that no longer fits their strategic plans, but with further development could end up with a product that gets FDA approval and hits the marketplace.

Stevens says that the Procter & Gamble donation is the latest example of innovation in technological development and commercialization at BU. “In the past decade,” he says, “we have added a biomedical research park, BioSquare, and two applied research and development centers, one of which, the Photonics Center, was entirely our own creation, and one of which was created in partnership with Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft of Germany. We have three incubators on our two campuses, and the Photonics Center has established two new venture funds of its own, Beacon Technology Ventures, and Beacon Life Sciences. I think it’s fair to say that no university has embraced technological development as Boston University has, nor has provided as many varied mechanisms to develop and commercialize technology.”

Frankl says he hopes that corporations will continue to donate promising technologies to universities, “because they provide researchers access to technologies that could possibly provide a future source of revenue for the universities. More importantly, the successful development of this technology could benefit people suffering from periodontal disease and other related health effects.”

26 September 2003
Boston University
Office of University Relations