Literature DB >> 11757008

Comparison of 3 bone substitutes in canine extraction sites.

Anthony Indovina1, Michael S Block.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the healing response with 3 different bone substitute materials in extraction sites in the dog.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four dogs had their mandibular and maxillary premolars extracted atraumatically. The sites were immediately grafted with anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss, Osteohealth, Shirley, NY), Bone Source (Leibinger, Inc, Kalamazoo, MI), or Embarc (Lorenz Surgical, Jacksonville, FL), or left untreated as a control. After 8 weeks, the sites were removed for histologic evaluation of bone fill and the healing response.
RESULTS: All sites healed well without signs of infection. No significant differences were noted in the shape of the ridges between groups. The control sites had radiographic bone fill by 8 weeks. The Bio-Oss sites showed bone fill with a similar appearance to the control sites. The Bone Source and Embarc sites showed implant material taking up most of the extraction site. In all sites the control and Bio-Oss sites had significantly more bone formation than the Embarc and Bone Source sites (P <.05). The control sites contained woven bone. The Bio-Oss sites were similar to the control sites, but with remnants of Bio-Oss in the bone. The Bone Source and Embarc sites were filled predominantly with the graft material without evidence of resorption and replacement of the materials, and with minimal bone formation.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, the control and Bio-Oss sites were similar, with bone filling most of the extraction site. The other 2 materials did not show replacement with bone. Copyright 2002 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:53-58, 2002

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11757008     DOI: 10.1053/joms.2002.00001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0278-2391            Impact factor:   1.895


  9 in total

1.  Bone regeneration with glass ceramic implants and calcium phosphate cements in a rabbit cranial defect model.

Authors:  Gerlind Schneider; Karin Blechschmidt; Dirk Linde; Peter Litschko; Thomas Körbs; Eggert Beleites
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2010-09-22       Impact factor: 3.896

2.  Bone formation with two types of grafting materials: a histologic and histomorphometric study.

Authors:  Amir Reza Rokn; Mohammad Amin Khodadoostan; Amir Ali Reza Rasouli Ghahroudi; Puria Motahhary; Mohammad Javad Kharrazi Fard; Hugo De Bruyn; Rose Afzalifar; Ehsan Soolar; Ahmad Soolari
Journal:  Open Dent J       Date:  2011-07-07

3.  Assessment of Regeneration of Bone in the Extracted Third Molar Sockets Augmented Using Xenograft (CollaPlugTN Zimmer) in Comparison with the Normal Healing on the Contralateral Side.

Authors:  Murugan Ranganathan; M Balaji; R Krishnaraj; Vivek Narayanan; Annamalai Thangavelu
Journal:  J Pharm Bioallied Sci       Date:  2017-11

4.  Biological Properties of Low-Toxic PLGA and PLGA/PHB Fibrous Nanocomposite Scaffolds for Osseous Tissue Regeneration. Evaluation of Potential Bioactivity.

Authors:  Boguslawa Żywicka; Izabella Krucińska; Jerzy Garcarek; Maria Szymonowicz; Agnieszka Komisarczyk; Zbigniew Rybak
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2017-10-28       Impact factor: 4.411

5.  Radiographic and Esthetic Evaluation Following Immediate Implant Placement with or without Socket Shield and Delayed Implant Placement Following Socket Preservation in the Maxillary Esthetic Region - A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Muthukumar Santhanakrishnan; Vedavalli Subramanian; Nithyakalyani Ramesh; R Kamaleeshwari
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dent       Date:  2021-11-19

6.  Variations in Soft and Hard Tissues following Immediate Implant Placement versus Delayed Implant Placement following Socket Preservation in the Maxillary Esthetic Region: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Muthukumar Santhanakrishnan; Nithyakalyani Ramesh; R Kamaleeshwari; Vedavalli Subramanian
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2021-10-04       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Clinical applications of concentrated growth factors combined with bone substitutes for alveolar ridge preservation in maxillary molar area: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Shi-Chen Lin; Xin Li; Hang Liu; Fang Wu; Lian Yang; Ya Su; Jun Li; Shao-Yu Duan
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2021-11-29

Review 8.  Partial maxillary osteotomy following an unsuccessful forced eruption of an impacted maxillary canine: 10 year follow-up. Review and case report.

Authors:  Edela Puricelli; Mário Alexandre Morganti; Henrique Voltollini de Azambuja; Deise Ponzoni; Clarice C Friedrisch
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.698

9.  Comparison of extraction sites versus artificial defects with xenogenic bone substitute in minipigs.

Authors:  Constanze Steiner; Matthias Karl; Matthias W Laschke; Peter Schupbach; Andrea Venturato; Angelines Gasser
Journal:  Clin Exp Dent Res       Date:  2021-01-04
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.