C-B Han1, S-C An. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Weifang People's Hospital, Weifang, Shandong, China. asr744@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the application value of injectable bioactive glass in the restoration of the oral bone defect. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 58 consecutive patients with oral bone defect > 1 mm, these patients were randomly assigned to a control group (n=26, Hydroxyapatite bioceramics) and an observation group (n=32, Injectable bioactive glass). The purpose of this study was to assess the comparison of the healing of oral bone defect. RESULTS: X-ray examination was performed at 6-month and 12-month following treatment. The bone healing in the observation group was significantly better than the control group (p <0.05), the incidences of local rejection reactions were not significantly different (p >0.05). Cone-beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) was performed at 6-month and 12-month following treatment. The mean bone thickness in the observation group was significantly lower than the control group, p <0.05. Both the levels of bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2) and transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) in the observation group were significantly higher than the control group, p <0.05. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of injectable bioactive glass in the restoration of the oral bone defect was better than hydroxyapatite bioceramics. Thus, injectable bioactive glass has great application value.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To explore the application value of injectable bioactive glass in the restoration of the oral bone defect. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 58 consecutive patients with oral bone defect > 1 mm, these patients were randomly assigned to a control group (n=26, Hydroxyapatite bioceramics) and an observation group (n=32, Injectable bioactive glass). The purpose of this study was to assess the comparison of the healing of oral bone defect. RESULTS: X-ray examination was performed at 6-month and 12-month following treatment. The bone healing in the observation group was significantly better than the control group (p <0.05), the incidences of local rejection reactions were not significantly different (p >0.05). Cone-beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) was performed at 6-month and 12-month following treatment. The mean bone thickness in the observation group was significantly lower than the control group, p <0.05. Both the levels of bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2) and transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) in the observation group were significantly higher than the control group, p <0.05. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of injectable bioactive glass in the restoration of the oral bone defect was better than hydroxyapatite bioceramics. Thus, injectable bioactive glass has great application value.