| Literature DB >> 31781606 |
Víctor Beltrán1, Marcio Lazzarini2, Rodolfo Figueroa3, Vanessa Sousa4, Wilfried Engelke3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopy has seen a significant development over recent years in various medical fields with its application expanding from the support of minimal invasive surgery to in situ imaging. In this context, the application of endoscopic techniques to assess the quality of the regenerated bone in situ in the drill hole before implant placement is an appealing approach. AIM: The aim of this study was to use short distance support immersion endoscopy (SD-SIE) to compare the quality of regenerated bone in healed postextraction sites, which are grafted with an in situ hardening β-TCP, against ungrafted sites, before implant placement. This assessment was based on microscopic bone analysis in combination with the blood vessel count.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31781606 PMCID: PMC6875396 DOI: 10.1155/2019/2797210
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1SD-SIE: (a) the endoscope is inserted into a sheath that provides both support and an irrigation system. (b) The endoscope with support immersion shaft is placed inside a dental extraction site model and implant cavity. (c) Short distance endoscopy allows observation under adequate magnification to differentiate structures for micromorphologic evaluation. When positioned at the entrance or fundus of the cavity, the endoscope can provide either a general or detailed view of the surgical field without having to make additional adjustments, thanks to its high depth of field.
Distribution of implant sites. Second premolar (PM2), first premolar (PM1), canine (C), lateral incisive (LI), and central incisive (CI).
| SITE | PM2 | PM1 | C | LI | CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ungrafted sites | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Grafted sites | 2 | 4 | 3 | – | 3 |
Figure 2Observation of regenerated bone using SD-SIE: (a) region of interest showing initial bleeding of a blood vessel in regenerated bone. (b) During reduced rinsing pressure, extravasation of blood increases.
Figure 3Micromorphology. Bone analysis of grafted and ungrafted bone: (a, d) Observation of bleeding vessels; (b, e) assessment of blood vessel area; (c, f) nonmineralized bone area; (g) grafted bone area.
Quantitative analysis of number of blood vessels per area of interest (AoI) (NBV). Grafted sites showed more total number of vessels than ungrafted sites (independent t-test; p < 0.05).
| Ungrafted sites ( | Grafted sites ( | |
|---|---|---|
| NBV | ||
| Mean | 2.538 |
|
| SD | 2.259 | 4.011 |
| SE | 0.652 | 1.158 |
| Min-max | 0–6 | 1–14 |
Quantitative analysis of relative area of vessels (VA), mineralized (MBA) and unmineralized bone area (UMBA) and relative area of bone substitute (BSA) in percentage. Grafted sites showed differences in compare the ungrafted sites (independent t-test; p < 0.05).
| Ungrafted sites ( | Grafted sites ( | |
|---|---|---|
| VA | ||
| Mean | 1.82 |
|
| SD | 1.274 | 0.967 |
| SE | 0.368 | 0.279 |
| Min-max | 0–4.34 | 0.28–3.53 |
|
| ||
| MBA | ||
| Mean | 89.509 | 86.282 |
| SD | 12.77 | 7.876 |
| SE | 3.686 | 2.274 |
| Min-max | 60–100 | 62–95 |
|
| ||
| UMBA | ||
| Mean | 10.491 | 13.718 |
| SD | 12.77 | 7.876 |
| SE | 3.686 | 2.274 |
| Min-max | 0–40 | 5–37 |
|
| ||
| BSA | ||
| Mean | 0 | 18.199 |
| SD | 0 | 18.72 |
| SE | 0 | 5.404 |
| Min-max | 0 | 2–74 |