Implant dentistry · 2006
Implant-supported prosthetic applications upon development of children and adolescents: a pilot study in pigs.
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.
Ersoy Ahmet Ersan, Ellialti Demet Bendik, Dogan Necdet
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is the investigation of the application of implant-supported prosthetic restorations using 2 implants supporting a fixed prosthesis during the physical growth and the development period of growing pigs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was carried out on 6 male farm pigs (1 as a control). The effect of the 2 screw-type endosseous implants inserted into the premolar area on the left mandibular arches of 5 farm pigs upon the jaw was investigated during a 3.5-8-month growth period using cephalometric radiographs. The cephalographs were taken with a specially standardized cephalostat, and a significant test of differences between 2 partners was used to evaluate them.
RESULTS: The study suggested that the implants showed alveolar elevation by bone growth but could not keep pace with the natural teeth eruptions and the bone growth in the region.
CONCLUSION: Although the sagittal and transverse developments of the neighboring bone region are greater than the implant-inserted region, the difference in this growth can be tolerated by corrections or modifications of implant-supported superstructures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was carried out on 6 male farm pigs (1 as a control). The effect of the 2 screw-type endosseous implants inserted into the premolar area on the left mandibular arches of 5 farm pigs upon the jaw was investigated during a 3.5-8-month growth period using cephalometric radiographs. The cephalographs were taken with a specially standardized cephalostat, and a significant test of differences between 2 partners was used to evaluate them.
RESULTS: The study suggested that the implants showed alveolar elevation by bone growth but could not keep pace with the natural teeth eruptions and the bone growth in the region.
CONCLUSION: Although the sagittal and transverse developments of the neighboring bone region are greater than the implant-inserted region, the difference in this growth can be tolerated by corrections or modifications of implant-supported superstructures.