Literature DB >> 11251660

Absorbable versus nonabsorbable membranes and bone grafts in the treatment of ligature-induced peri-implantitis defects in dogs. Part I. A clinical investigation.

F H Nociti1, M A Machado, C M Stefani, E A Sallum, A W Sallum.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to clinically evaluate an absorbable collagen membrane (Bio-Gide) and a nonabsorbable polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (PTFE), associated or not with bone grafts, for the treatment of ligature-induced peri-implantitis defects in dogs. The bilateral mandibular premolars were removed from 5 2-year-old mongrel dogs. After 3 months of healing, 3 titanium implants were placed on each side of the mandible. Experimental peri-implantitis was induced after abutment connection. Ligatures and abutments were removed after 1 month and the bone defects were randomly assigned to one of the following treatments: DB: debridement alone; GBR+BG-I: debridement plus PTFE membrane associated with mineralized bone graft (Bio-Oss); GBR+BG-II: debridement plus collagen membrane (Bio-Gide) associated with mineralized bone graft; GBR-I: debridement plus PTFE membrane; GBR-II: debridement plus collagen membrane; BG: debridement plus mineralized bone graft. The peri-implant bone defects were measured before and 5 months after treatment. Results showed the greatest percentage of vertical bone fill for GBR+BG-II (27.77+/-14.07) followed by GBR-II (21.78+/-16.19), BG (21.26+/-6.87), GBR+BG-I (19.57+/-13.36), GBR-I (18.86+/-10.63) and DB (14.03+/-5.6). However, the values were not statistically significant (ANOVA, contrast F test, P=0.612). Within the limits of the present investigation, it can be concluded that no difference was detected among treatments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11251660     DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012002115.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  6 in total

Review 1.  Pre-clinical models for oral and periodontal reconstructive therapies.

Authors:  G Pellegrini; Y J Seol; R Gruber; W V Giannobile
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2009-11-03       Impact factor: 6.116

2.  Preliminary biocompatible evaluation of nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 composite porous membrane.

Authors:  Yili Qu; Ping Wang; Yi Man; Yubao Li; Yi Zuo; Jidong Li
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2010-08-09

Review 3.  Definition, etiology, prevention and treatment of peri-implantitis--a review.

Authors:  Ralf Smeets; Anders Henningsen; Ole Jung; Max Heiland; Christian Hammächer; Jamal M Stein
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 2.151

4.  Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Different Dental Prosthetic Membranes in Guided Bone Regeneration during Dental Implants: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yan Guo; Linghan Su; Caidi Chen; Yan Liu; Jianxue Li
Journal:  Comput Intell Neurosci       Date:  2022-07-31

5.  Biomaterials in maxillofacial surgery: membranes and grafts.

Authors:  Luigi F Rodella; Gaia Favero; Mauro Labanca
Journal:  Int J Biomed Sci       Date:  2011-06

6.  Clinical, Radiographic and Microbiological Evaluation of High Level Laser Therapy, a New Photodynamic Therapy Protocol, in Peri-Implantitis Treatment; a Pilot Experience.

Authors:  Gianluigi Caccianiga; Gerard Rey; Marco Baldoni; Alessio Paiusco
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 3.411

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.