• Journal of The Korean Society of Integrative Medicine
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.41-47
• /
• 2014

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.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.323-335
• /
• 2000

The purpose of this study was to examine the frequency of dehiscence bone defect on peri-implant and to compare the difference between resorbable membrane and nonresorbable membrane in bone regeneration on peri-implant. Amomg the patients, 22 patientswho have recieved an implant surgery at the department of Periodontics in Dankook University Dental Hospital showed implant exposure due to the dehiscence defect and 27 implants of these 22 patients were the target of the treatment. $Gore-Tex^{(R)}$ and $Bio-mesh^{(R)}$ were applied to the patients and treated them with antibiotics for five days both preoperatively and postoperatively. Reentry period was 26 weeks on average in maxilla and 14 weeks on average in mandible. The results were as follows : 1. Dehiscence bone defect frequently appeared in premolar in mandible and anterior teeth in maxilla respectively. 2. Among 27 cases, 2 membrane exposures were observed and in these two cases, regenerated area was decreased. 3. In non-resorbable membrane, bone surface area $9.25{\pm}4.84$ preoperatively and significantly increased to $11.48{\pm}7.52$ postoperatively.(P<0.05) 4. In resorbable membrane, bone surface area was $14.80{\pm}8.25$ preoperatively and meaningfully widened to $17.61{\pm}10.67$ postoperatively.(P<0.05) 5 . The increase of bone surface area in non-resorbable membrane was $2.23{\pm}3.38$ and the increase of bone surface area in resorbable membrane was $2.80{\pm}3.00$ ;therefore, there was no significant difference between these two membranes(P<0.05). This study implies that the surgical method using DFDB and membrane on peri-implant bone defect is effective in bone regeneration regardless the kind of the membrane, and a similar result was shown when a resorbable membrane was used.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.431-451
• /
• 1998

4 beagle dogs aged over one and half years and weighed 15 to 16 Kg were utilized in this study. Experimental dehiscent defects were made in the mandibular edentulous area after removal of lower premolar. e-PTFE membrane resorbable membrane, and PDGF-BB-loaded resorbable membrane were covered at the dehiscent defects around the dental implants respectively. Animal was sacrificed at 1, 2, 3 months respectively. Non-decalicifed specimens were made and mutiple-stained for light microscopic study. The results were as follows: 1. Dehiscent defects around the implant installed in the beagle dog were an excellent defect model for studying guided bone regeneration. 2. Fibroblasts penetrated into expanded-PTFE membrane was observed and inflammatory cell infiltration was also observed around the membrane. 3. Resorbable membrane was degradaded and resorbed at 1 month after application to the dehiscent defect. Though multinucleated giant cells were observed adjacent to the membrane, that had no reverse effect on the boe regeneration. 4. PDGF-BB-Ioaded resorbable membrane was same capability as the resorbable membrane and e-PTFE membrane in the guided bone regeneration. 5. PDGF-BB-Ioaded resorbable membrane-applied site was better than resorbable membrane-applied site in the speed and maturity of bone formation. Within the above results, it was suggested that PDGF-BB-Ioaded resorbable membrane might have same bone regeneration capacity as nonresorbable membrane in the dehisced implant of the beagle dog and potentiality to use in human subjects.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.71-76
• /
• 2009

Purpose: Many researches showed loss of alveolar bone in fresh extraction socket and even in case of immediate implant placement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of non-resorbable barrier membrane on the change of buccal and lingual alveolar bone in immediate implant placement into periapically infected extraction sockets. Materials and methods: Immediate implants were placed into artificially induced periapical lesion of mandibular premolars after complete debridement using buccal bone defect made by a 6mm trephine bur in 4 mongrel dogs. Before flap repositioning, a non-resorbable barrier membrane was placed on the buccal defect in the experimental group. No membrane was placed in the control group. In 12 weeks after placement, the dogs were sacrificed and undecalcified histologic specimens were prepared. The vertical distance from the smooth-rough surface interface(SRI) to gingiva, 1st bone contact and bone crest were measured in buccal and lingual side. The horizontal thicknesses of gingiva and bone at 0, 1, 2 and 3mm below SRI were measured. Results: The buccal bone was resorbed more than lingual bone in both groups and there was statistical significance(p<0.05). The distances from SRI to 1st bone contact were $2.45{\pm}2.35\;mm$ in experimental group and $4.49{\pm}3.10\;mm$ in control group. In all vertical level, lingual bone was thicker than buccal bone(p<0.05). Conclusion: Buccal bone was reduced more than lingual bone in immediate implant placement into periapically infected extraction sockets. Placement of non-resorbable barrier membrane reduced the buccal bone resorption. However there was no statistical significance.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.687-702
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of non-resorbable membrane such as e-PTFE which was used with DFDB in bone regeneration on dehiscence defect in peri-implant area. Amomg the patients, who have recieved an implant surgery at the department of Periodontics in Dan Kook University Dental Hospital, 12 patients showed implant exposure due to the dehiscence defect and 15 implants of these 22 patients were the target of the treatment. Periodontists randomly applied $Gore-Tex^{(R)}$ to the patients and treated them with antibiotics for five days both preoperatively and postoperatively. Reentry period was 26 weeks on average in maxilla and 14 weeks on average in mandible. The results were as follows : 1. Dehiscence bone defect frequently appeared in premolar in mandible and anterior teeth in maxilla respectively. 2. Among 15 cases, 1 membrane exposure was observed and in this case, regenerated area was decreased. 3. In non-resorbable membrane, bone surface area $9.25{\pm}4.84$ preoperatively and significantly increased to $11.48{\pm}7.52$ postoperatively(0.05). 4. The increase of bone surface area in non-resorbable membrane was $2.23{\pm}3.38$. 5. As a result of histopathological finding, DFDB surrounded by new bone formation and lamellate bone, resorption of DFDB and bone mineralization was found. Also, fibrosis of connective tissue beneath the membrane was found. This study shows that the surgical method using DFDB and non-resorbable membrane on dehiscence defect in peri-implant area is effective in bone regeneration.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.19-43
• /
• 1997

The barrier membranes for GTR procedure could be affected bY bacterial contamination after exposure to oral environment. This study was done to evaluate whether the tetracycline impregnated barrier membranes could inhibit bacterial attachment and penetration into membranes. The resorbable membrane(polylactic and polyglycolide copolymer, $Resolute^{(R)}$, W.L Gore and Associates, Inc..USA) and the non-resorbable membrane(e-PTFE; Gore-TexTM, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.,USA) were cut into 4mm discs and trated with 5% tridodecylmethylammonium chloride solution in ethanol and dried in air. The membranes were immersed in tetracycline(TC) solution (100mg/ml, pH 8.0) and dried. To the maxillary canine-premolar region in six periodontally healthy volunteers, removable acrylic devices were inserted, on which 8 cylindrical chambers were glued with TC impregnated and non-impregnated discs, the membrane discs were examined for bacterial attachment and penetration, and structural changes under SEM and LM. From the 1st day to the 7th day, membranes showed bacterial plaque formation composed of cocci and rods. Thereafter, filamentous bacteria appeared and the plaque thickness increased. The TC impregnated e-PTFE membranes showed less bacterial attachment and delayed in bacterial plaque maturation than non-treated membranes. As for bacterial penetration, the TC impregnated e-PTFE membranes showed superficial invasion and infrequent presence of bacteria in unexposed inner surface at the 4th week. while the non-treated e-PTFE membranes showed deep bacterial invasion at the 2nd week and frequent presence of internal bacteria at the 4th week. The resorbable membranes started to be resorbed at the 2nd week and were perforated at the 4th week, regardless of TC treatment. In conclusion, bacterial plaque formation and penetration was efficiently delayed in TC impregnated e-PTFE membranes, whereas resorbable membranes were similar in bacterial invasion due to membrane degradation and perforation, regardless of TC treatment.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.36 no.4
• /
• pp.275-279
• /
• 2010

Introduction: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is a common procedure for the treatment of bone defects and bone augmentation. The nonresorbable barriers are well-documented barriers for GBR because of their stability and malleability. However, few GBR studies have focused on the different types of non-resorbable barriers. Therefore, this study examined the clinical results of different non-resorbable barriers for GBR; expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) (TR-Gore Tex, Flagstaff, AZ, USA), and high-density polytetrafluoroethylene (d-PTFE) (Cytoplast membrane, Oraltronics, Bremen, Germany). Materials and Methods: The analysis was performed on patients treated with GBR and implant placement from January 2007 to October 2007 in the department of the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. The patients were divided into two groups based on the type of non-resorbable barrier used, and the amount of bone regeneration, marginal bone resorption after prosthetics, implant survival rate and surgical complication in both groups were evaluated. Results: The implants in both groups showed high survival rates, and the implant-supported prostheses functioned stably during the follow-up period. During the second surgery of the implant, all horizontal defects were filled with new bone, and there was no significant difference in the amount of vertical bone defect. Conclusion: In bone defect areas, GBR with non-resorbable barriers can produce favorable results with adequate postoperative management. There was no significant difference in bone regeneration between e-PTFE and d-PTFE.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.38 no.3
• /
• pp.535-542
• /
• 2008

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate survival rate of implant and bone formation, to analyze failure contribution factor. Material and Methods: A total of 52 consecutive patients(35 male, 17 female, mean age 49 years) with 104 osseous defects were treated during the period from October 2004 to June 2007 with a simultaneous or staged GBR approach using non-resorbable or resorbable membranes combined with autogenous bone grafts or xenograft(Bio-Oss, Bio-cera, BBP). Result: A total of 32(30,8%) of 104 GBR-treated sites failed the bone formation and a total of 5(5.6%) of 89 implants were removed. Early exposure of the membrane has significantly affected bone formation(p<0.05). Non-resorbable membrane showed more exposure of the membrane and low success rate of bone formation than resorbable membrane(p<0.05). There were no difference between success rate of bone formation and using autogenous bone or graft materials. There were no statistically significant difference between success rate of bone formation and smoking or using PRP. Mandible showed more success rate of bone formation than maxilla(p<0.05). Conclusion: Early exposure of the membrane, membrane type and maxilla/mandible type have influence on success rate of bone formation during GBR.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.305-324
• /
• 2000

This study compared the short-term(4 months) clinical results of regenerative therapy with bioabsorbable membranes($BioMesh^{(R)}$) and bone allograft for the treatment of periodontal(intrabony and furcation) defects in smokers and nonsmokers.(16 smokers) 32 subjects with 92 defects participated in the study(46 in smokers and 46 in non-smokers). This study also evaluated a bioresorbable barrier with and without decalcified freeze-dried bone allograft(DFDBA). The 92 periodontal defects were randomly treated with either the resorbable barrier alone or resorbable barrier in combination with DFDBA following thorough defect debridement and root preparation with tetracycline. Each patient received both types of treatment modalities. Clinical examinations(probing depth, gingival recession, clinical attachment level, plaque index and gingival index) were carried out immediately before and 4 months after surgery. Significant(p<0.001) gains in mean attachment level were observed for both smokers(2.93mm) and non-smokers(3.30mm) but there were not significant difference between two groups. Similarly, significant reductions in mean probing depthshowed for smokers(4.52mm) and non-smokers(4.26mm). However, when comparing gingival recession, smokers were found to exhibit significantly poorer treatment results(1.59mm vs 0.96mm, p<0.05). Using the split-mouth-design, no statistically significant difference between the two modalities could be detected with regard to pocket depth reduction, gingival recession, or attachment gain. These results illustrate that the attachment gain is better in the non-smoker and the best in the non-smoker with the combination therapy of resorbable barrier and DFDBA than with resorbable barrier alone but smoking had no significant effect on clinical treatment outcome, even though smokers show more significant gingival recession. In addition, both treatments, either resorbable barrier plus DFDBA or resorbable barrier alone, promoted significant resolution of periodontal defects but the addition of DFDBA with a bioabsorbable membrane appears to add no extra benefit to the only membrane treatment.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.46 no.4
• /
• pp.222-231
• /
• 2008

Various maxillary sinus floor augmentation techniques were common performed and in the most cases, many kinds of bone graft materials were used. The graft materials are autogenous bone or other biomaterials of human, animal or synthetic origin. But these cases report describes a new surgical technique by which dental implants are inserted in a void space created by elevating the sinus membrane without additional graft material in atrophic posterior maxilla. We created lateral bony window using piezoelectric device and elevated the schneiderian membrane in five patients and was repositioned with bony window in five patients, without any bone graft. From the clinical and histological results, it is found there is potential capacity for bone formation and placement of implants in the maxillary sinus without the use of bone grafts or bone substitutes.