Journal of clinical periodontology · 2019
Gingiva thickening with a porcine collagen matrix in a preclinical dog model: Histological outcomes.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Schmitt Christian M, Schlegel Karl Andreas, Gammel Lisa, Moest Tobias
Аннотация
AIM: To compare 10-month histological and immunohistological outcomes after soft tissue thickening around teeth with a porcine collagen matrix (CM) versus a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In eight beagle dogs, soft tissue thickening of the buccal gingiva of upper canines was performed with the SCTG or the CM. Connective tissue thickness (CTT) was histomorphometrically measured in the augmented regions. The augmented connective tissues were also histologically characterized and the collagen I and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expressions immunohistologically quantified.
RESULTS: CTT significantly differed between groups (SCTG: 1.32 mm ± 0.44 mm; CM: 1.06 mm ± 0.27 mm; p = .008). Descriptive histological analyses revealed mature connective tissue that did not differ between groups. Immunohistological quantification of collagen I and VEGF expressions in the connective tissue also revealed no significant inter-group differences (collagen I: SCTG, 32.64% ± 7.09% vs. CM, 30.57% ± 7.83%; VEGF: SCTG, 39.06% ± 7.27% vs. CM, 37.15% ± 9.80%).
CONCLUSION: SCTG is superior to CM with regard to CTT in this experimental model. The CM and the SCTG lead to comparable connective tissue quality ten months after connective tissue thickening.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In eight beagle dogs, soft tissue thickening of the buccal gingiva of upper canines was performed with the SCTG or the CM. Connective tissue thickness (CTT) was histomorphometrically measured in the augmented regions. The augmented connective tissues were also histologically characterized and the collagen I and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expressions immunohistologically quantified.
RESULTS: CTT significantly differed between groups (SCTG: 1.32 mm ± 0.44 mm; CM: 1.06 mm ± 0.27 mm; p = .008). Descriptive histological analyses revealed mature connective tissue that did not differ between groups. Immunohistological quantification of collagen I and VEGF expressions in the connective tissue also revealed no significant inter-group differences (collagen I: SCTG, 32.64% ± 7.09% vs. CM, 30.57% ± 7.83%; VEGF: SCTG, 39.06% ± 7.27% vs. CM, 37.15% ± 9.80%).
CONCLUSION: SCTG is superior to CM with regard to CTT in this experimental model. The CM and the SCTG lead to comparable connective tissue quality ten months after connective tissue thickening.