Journal of periodontology · 2004
Enamel matrix derivative and guided tissue regeneration in the treatment of dehiscence-type defects: a histomorphometric study in dogs.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Sallum Enilson A, Pimentel Suzana P, Saldanha Juliana B, Nogueira-Filho Getúlio R, Casati Marcio Z, Nociti Francisco H Júnior, Sallum Antonio Wilson
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The goal of this investigation was to histologically and histometrically evaluate the healing process of dehiscence-type defects treated by enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and/or guided tissue regeneration (GTR).
METHODS: Seven mongrel dogs were used. Buccal osseous dehiscences were surgically created on the mesial roots of the mandibular third and fourth premolars. The defects were exposed to plaque accumulation for 3 months. After this period, the defects were randomly assigned to one of the treatments: open flap debridement (OFD), enamel matrix derivative (EMD), GTR with bioabsorbable membrane (GTR), and the combination of both procedures (EMD + GTR). After 4 months of healing, the dogs were sacrificed and the blocks were processed. The histometric parameters evaluated included gingival recession, epithelial length, connective tissue adaptation, new cementum, and new bone.
RESULTS: A superior length of new cementum was observed in the sites treated by EMD (3.7 mm) and EMD + GTR (3.8 mm) in comparison with OFD (2.4 mm) (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found in the remaining histometric parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, it can be concluded that EMD alone or in combination with GTR barriers may effectively promote new cementum formation. The combination of both therapies may not provide additional benefits.
METHODS: Seven mongrel dogs were used. Buccal osseous dehiscences were surgically created on the mesial roots of the mandibular third and fourth premolars. The defects were exposed to plaque accumulation for 3 months. After this period, the defects were randomly assigned to one of the treatments: open flap debridement (OFD), enamel matrix derivative (EMD), GTR with bioabsorbable membrane (GTR), and the combination of both procedures (EMD + GTR). After 4 months of healing, the dogs were sacrificed and the blocks were processed. The histometric parameters evaluated included gingival recession, epithelial length, connective tissue adaptation, new cementum, and new bone.
RESULTS: A superior length of new cementum was observed in the sites treated by EMD (3.7 mm) and EMD + GTR (3.8 mm) in comparison with OFD (2.4 mm) (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found in the remaining histometric parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, it can be concluded that EMD alone or in combination with GTR barriers may effectively promote new cementum formation. The combination of both therapies may not provide additional benefits.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Absorbable ImplantsAlveolar Bone LossAlveolar ProcessAnimalsBicuspidConnective TissueDebridementDental CementumDental Enamel ProteinsDogsEpitheliumFemaleGingival RecessionGuided Tissue Regeneration, PeriodontalImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMembranes, ArtificialRandom AllocationSurgical FlapsWound Healing