Browse > Article

Bone formation following dental implant placement with augmentation materials at dehiscence defects in dogs : pilot study  

Jeong, Ji-Yun (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Research institute for Periodontal Regeneration)
Sohn, Joo-Yeon (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Research institute for Periodontal Regeneration)
Chai, Kyung-Jun (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Research institute for Periodontal Regeneration)
Kim, Sung-Tae (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Research institute for Periodontal Regeneration)
Chung, Sung-Min (Dentium Co.)
Lee, In-Seop (Institute of Physics & Applied Physics, and Atomic-scale Surface Science Research Center, Yonsei University)
Cho, Kyoo-Sung (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Research institute for Periodontal Regeneration)
Kim, Chong-Kwan (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Research institute for Periodontal Regeneration)
Choi, Seong-Ho (Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Research institute for Periodontal Regeneration)
Publication Information
Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science / v.38, no.2, 2008 , pp. 191-198 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: Guided bone regeneration(GBR) has emerged as a treatment in the management of osseous defects associated with dental implants. But several studies have reported different degrees of success of guided bone regeneration, depending upon the type of barrier selected, presence or absence of an underlying graft material, types of graft material, feasibility of technique, and clinician's preference. The aim of the present study was to evaluate bone formation following dental implant placement with augmentation materials at dehiscence defects in dogs. Material and Methods: Standardized buccal dehiscence defects($3{\times}5\;mm$) were surgically 2 Mongrel dog's mandibles, each 8 SLA surface, 8 anodizing surface implants. Each buccal dehiscence defect received flap surgery only(no treatment, control), $Cytoflex^{(R)}$ membrane only, Resolut $XT^{(R)}$ membrane only, Resolut $XT^{(R)}+Osteon^{TM}$. Animals were sacrificed at 8 weeks postsurgery and block sections were harvested for histologic analysis. Resuts: All experimental group resulted in higher bone formation than control. Resolut $XT^{(R)}+Osteon^{TM}$ group resulted appeared highest defect resolution. There was no difference between SLA and anodizing surface, nonresorbable and resorbable membrane. Conclusion: GBR results in rapid and clinically relevant bone closure on dehiscence defects of the dental implants.
Keywords
dental implant; dehiscence defect; bone formation; GBR;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Tempro PJ, Nalbandian J. Colonization of retrieved polytetrafluroethylene membranes: morphological and microbiological observations. J Periodontol 1993:64:162-168   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
2 Simion M, Baldoni M, Rossi P, Zaffe D. A comparative study of the effectiveness of e-PTFE membranes with and without early exposure during the healing period. Int J Periodontics & Restorative Dent 1994;14:166-180
3 Cho KS, Choi SH, Han KH et al. Alveolar bone formation at dental implant dehiscence defects following guided bone regeneration and xenogeneic freeze-dried demineralized bone matrix. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:419-428   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Dahlin C. Lekholm U, Becker W et al. Treatment of fenestration and dehiscence bone defect around oral implants using the guided tissue regeneration technique: a prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:312-8
5 Jovanovic SA, Spiekermann H, Richter EJ. Bone regeneration around titanium dental implants in dehisced defect sites: a clinical study. Int J Oral & Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:233-245   PUBMED
6 Hjorting-Hansen E, Worsaae N, Lemmons J. Histologic response after implantation of porous hydroxyapatite ceramic in humans. Int J Oral and Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:255-263
7 Wolfe LA, Hobkirk JA. Bone response to a matched modulus endosseous implant material. Int J Oral and Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:311-320
8 Rosen P, Reynolds MA. Guided bone regeneration for dehiscence and fenetration defects on implants using an absorbable polymer barrier. J Periodontol 2001;72:250-6   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Ofer Moses, Sandu Pitaru, Zvi Artzi, Carlos E, Nemcovsky. Healing of dehiscence type defects in implants placed together with different barrier membranes: a comparative clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 210-219   DOI   PUBMED
10 Nyman s, Lang NP, Buse D et al. Bone regeneration adjacent to titanium dental implants using guided tissue regeneraion: A report of two cases. Int J Oral Maxiollofac Implants 1990;5:9-14
11 Cordaro L, Amade DS, Cordaro M. Clinical results of alveolar ridge augmentation with mandibular block bone grafts in partially edentulous patients prior to implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:103-111   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Hjorting Hansen. Histologic response after implantation of porous hydroxylapatite ceramic in human. Int J Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:255-263
13 Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral impant surfaces: part 2-review focusing on clinical knowledge of different surface. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:544-564   PUBMED
14 Dahlin C, Lekholm U, Linde A. Membrane-induced bone augmentation at titanium implants. A report on ten fixtures followed form 1 to 3 years after lodaing. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1991;11:273-281   PUBMED
15 Schierano G, Canuto RA, Navone R et al. Biological factors involved in the osseointegration of oral titanium implants with different surfaces. J Periodontol 2005;76:1710-1720   DOI
16 Becker W, Schenk R, Higuchi K, Lekholm U, Becker BE. Variation in bone regeneration adjacent to implants augmented with barrier membranes alone or with demineralized freeze-dried bone or autologous grafts: a study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants;1995;143-154   PUBMED
17 Becker W, Becker BE, Handlesman M et al. Bone formation at dehisced dental implant sites treated with implant augmentation material: a pilot study in dogs. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1990;10:92-101   PUBMED
18 Kim YS, Kim TG, Jung UW et al. Histomorphology on healing of the chitosan membrane and b-TCP on dental implant dehiscence defects in dogs. Key engineering materials 2006;309-311:255-258   DOI
19 Jovanovic & Nevins. Bone formation utilizing titanium-reinforced barrier membrane. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1995;15:56-69
20 Buser. Localized ridge augmentation using GBR. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1993;64:925-33
21 Hockers T, Abensur D, Valentini P, Legrand R, Hammerle CH. The combined use of bioresorbable membranes and xenografts or autografts in the treatment of bone defects around implants. a study in beagle dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:487-498   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Selvig KA, Kersten BG, Chamberlain AD, Wikesjo UM & Nilveus RE. Regenerative surgery of intrabony periodontal defects using ePTFE barrier membranes: scanning electron microscopic evaluation of retrieved membrane vs clinical healing. J Periodontol 1992;63:974-978   DOI   PUBMED
23 Schwartz Z, Lohmann CH, Oefinger J et al. Implant surface characteristics modulate differentiation behavior of cells in the osteoblastic lineage. Adv Dent Res 1999;13:38-48   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Buser D, Bragger U, Lang NP, Nyman S. Regeneration and enlargement of jaw bone using guided tissue regeneration. Clin Oral Implants Res 1990;1:22-32   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Hammerle. A systematic review of the survival of implants in bone sites augmented with barrier membranes in partially edentulous patients. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29(suppl. 3):226-231   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Simion M, Scarano A, Gionso L et al. Guided bone regeneration using resorbable and nonresorbable membranes; A comparative histological study in humans. Int J Oral Maxillovac Implants 1996;11:735-42