Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2012
Dentointegration of a titanium implant: a case report.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schwarz Frank, Mihatovic Ilja, Golubovic Vladimir, Becker Jürgen
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This case illustrates a pulp tissue-induced dentointegration of a titanium implant.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One commercially available titanium implant with a sand-blasted and acid-etched surface was placed in the maxilla of a foxhound where the palatinal root of the previously (i.e., 8 weeks) removed first molar was unintentionally retained. After 8 weeks of nonsubmerged healing, the dissected block was prepared for immunohistochemical (osteocalcin) and histomorphometrical analysis.
RESULTS: A reparative hard tissue had formed within the artificially opened pulp canal. Also, the external layer of the exposed dentin due to the root fracture during tooth removal further developed into an atubular reparative dentin thus establishing a close contact with the adjacent titanium implant surface. The entire contact zone was demarcated by an intense osteocalcin antigen reactivity. A thin layer of osteocementum originated from the root surface and superimposed implant integration in the peripheral areas. Mean contact of osteodentin/osteocementum to the implant surface was 67.4 %, whereas bone-to-implant contact at the vestibular aspect was 63.5 %.
CONCLUSION: The present case report provides the first histological evidence for a pulp tissue-induced dentointegration of a titanium implant.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One commercially available titanium implant with a sand-blasted and acid-etched surface was placed in the maxilla of a foxhound where the palatinal root of the previously (i.e., 8 weeks) removed first molar was unintentionally retained. After 8 weeks of nonsubmerged healing, the dissected block was prepared for immunohistochemical (osteocalcin) and histomorphometrical analysis.
RESULTS: A reparative hard tissue had formed within the artificially opened pulp canal. Also, the external layer of the exposed dentin due to the root fracture during tooth removal further developed into an atubular reparative dentin thus establishing a close contact with the adjacent titanium implant surface. The entire contact zone was demarcated by an intense osteocalcin antigen reactivity. A thin layer of osteocementum originated from the root surface and superimposed implant integration in the peripheral areas. Mean contact of osteodentin/osteocementum to the implant surface was 67.4 %, whereas bone-to-implant contact at the vestibular aspect was 63.5 %.
CONCLUSION: The present case report provides the first histological evidence for a pulp tissue-induced dentointegration of a titanium implant.