Journal of The Korean Society of Integrative Medicine (대한통합의학회지)

Korean Society of Integrative Medicine (대한통합의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparison of the Appearance in Implant Success according to Membrane Type during GBR(Guided Bone Regeneration)

골유도 재생술식(GBR)시 차단막 종류에 따른 임플란트 결과 비교

  • Lee, Sunmi (Dept. of Dental Hygiene, Kyungnam College of Information & Technology) ;
  • Kim, Jiyoung (Dept. of Dental Hygiene, Kyungnam College of Information & Technology)
  • 이선미 (경남정보대학교 치위생과) ;
  • 김지영 (경남정보대학교 치위생과)
  • Received : 2014.05.27
  • Accepted : 2014.06.17
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : The aim was to compare the implant success rate according to membrane type through a clinical case of patients, who used bio-resorbable membrane and non-resorbable membrane. Methods : A survey was conducted targeting patients with the use of bio-resorbable membrane and non-resorbable membrane who visited H dental clinic in Busan for implant surgery and bone graft for 1 year from May 2010 to May 2011. A chart was made and surveyed for 100 people with non-resorbable membrane and for 75 people with bio-resorbable membrane. Results were compared. Results : 1. As for the measurement value of Periotest M${(R)}$, the value of -8~0 was measured with 92% in case of surgery by using non-resorbable membrane. The value of +1~+9 was measured with 8.0%. In case of surgery by using bio-resorbable membrane, Peiotest M(R) was measured with 78.7% as for the value of -8~0 and 16(21.3%) as for the value of +1~+9. In light of this, a case of using non-resorbable membrane was indicated to be higher(p=0.021) in success rate than a case of using bio-resorbable membrane. 2. As a result of periodontal conditions, namely, bleeding(p=0.914), swelling(p=0.500), inflammation(p=0.074), pain(p=0.571), and itch appearance(p=0.475) according to membrane type, all were insignificant. Conclusions : A case of using non-resorbable membrane is considered to be likely to be more effective than using bio-resorbable membrane during GBR(Guided Bone Regeneration) with the use of membrane in implant surgery.

Keywords

References

  1. 김성윤(2009). 키토산-수산화인회석 차폐막이 골재생에 미치는 영향. 원광대학교 대학원, 박사학위 논문.
  2. 김종관(1994). 흡수성 차단막과 골 이식재가 성견 치주질환 치조골 재생에 미치는 영향. 연세대학교 대학원, 석사학위 논문.
  3. 김창성, 최성호, 조규성(2001). 성견의 치조 연상 임플란트주위 결손부에서의 탈회냉동건조골과 e-PRFE막의 효과. 대한치주과학회지, 31(1), 57-72.
  4. 박관수(2007). 골이식재 및 차단막의 종류와 특징. 대한치과의사협회지, 45(10), 600-608.
  5. 이진, 권영혁, 박준봉 등(2004). 티타늄 강화 차폐막의 골유도 재생 효과. 대한치주과학회지, 34(4), 711-722.
  6. Becker W, Becker BE, Handlesman M et al(1990). Bone formation at dehisced dental implant sites treated with implant augmentation material: a pilot study in dogs. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 10(2), 92-101.
  7. Buser D, Bragger U, Lang NP et al(1990). Regenertion and enlargement of jaw bone using guided tissue regeneration. Clin Oral Implants Res, 1(1), 22-32. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1990.010104.x
  8. Buser D, Dula K, Belser U et al(1993). Localized ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration. 1. Surgical procedure in the maxilla. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 13(1), 29-45.
  9. Dahlin C, Linde A, Gottlow J et al(1988). Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration. Plast Reconstr Surg, 81(5), 672-676. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-198805000-00004
  10. Dahlin C, Sennerby L, Lekholm U et al(1989). Generatin of new bone around titanium implants using a membrane technique: an experimental study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 4(1), 19-25.
  11. Dahlin C, Gottlow J, Linde A et al(1990). Healing of maxillary and mandibular bone defects using a membrane technique. An experimental study in monkeys. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg, 24(1), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.3109/02844319009004514
  12. Dahlin C, Andersson L, Linde A(1991). Bone aubmentation at fenestrated implants byan ostteopromotive membrane techinque. Acontrolled clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2(4), 159-165. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1991.020401.x
  13. Gotfredsen K, Nimb L, Buser D et al(1993). Evaluation of guided bone regeneration around implants placed into fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in dogs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 51(8), 879-884. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(10)80108-9
  14. Lekholm U, Becker W, Dahlin C, et al(1993). The role of early versus late removal of GTAM Membranes on bone formation at oral implants placed into immediate extraction sockets. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res, 4(3), 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1993.040302.x
  15. Schhenk RK. Buser D. Hardwick WR et al(1994). Healing pattern of Bone regeneration in membrane-protected defects: A histologic study of the canine mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 9(1), 13-29.
  16. Seibert J, Nyman S(1990). Localized ridge augmentation in dogs: a pilot study using membranes and hydroxyapatite. J Periodontol, 61(3), 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1990.61.3.157
  17. Warrer K, Gotfredsen K, Hjorting-Hansen E et al(1991). Guided tissue regeneration ensures osseointegration of dental implants placed into extraction socket. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2(4), 166-171. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1991.020402.x