We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 20 (2000), No. 1     1. Jan. 2000
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 20 (2000), No. 1  (01.01.2000)

Page 41-49


Tissue Regeneration in Bone Defects Adjacent to Endosseous Implants: An Experimental Pilot Study
De Vicente, Juan Carlos / López-Arranz, Elena / López-Arranz, Juan Sebastián
Extraction socket defects or alveolar ridge defects may limit or restrict placement of implants. The present study assessed the efficacy of inducing bone formation with demineralized freeze-dried bone (DFDB), osteoconduction with hydroxyapatite (HA), and guided bone regeneration with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) in bone defects adjacent to endosseous implants in an animal model. Twenty-four implants were placed in the long bones of 3 pigs. After preparation of 24 cylindric acute defects adjacent to the coronal 5 mm of each implant, 18 of the defects were treated by DFDB, HA, or e-PTFE. The 6 remaining defects healed spontaneously with no treatment (controls). In each pig, one tibia received 4 commercially pure titanium screw implants (3.75 mm 3 15 mm), while the contralateral tibia received 4 HA-coated cylindric implants (3.25 mm 3 15 mm). Bone formation in response to the 3 treatments and control cases was evaluated using computer-assisted densitometric image analysis. The results showed that a higher density of tissue formed under e-PTFE membranes. A significantly greater increase in bone density was noticed in bone defects treated with an e-PTFE membrane vs DFDB (P = 0.04), in e-PTFE vs control sites (P = 0.04), and in defects treated with HA vs DFDB (P = 0.04) in HA-coated implants. In titanium implants the differences observed were not significant. It was also observed that bone regeneration in defects treated with HA differs with the type of implant used (titanium vs HA-coated implants), but such differences were not significant.