Journal of periodontology · 2000
Comparison of bioabsorbable and non-resorbable membranes in the treatment of dehiscence-type defects. A histomorphometric study in dogs.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка 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.
da Silva Pereira S L, Sallum A W, Casati M Z, Caffesse R G, Weng D, Nociti F H, Sallum E A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The goal of this investigation was to compare, histologically and histometrically, the healing process of dehiscence-type defects treated by guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with bioabsorbable polylactic acid (PLA) membranes and non-resorbable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTF) membranes.
METHODS: Six mongrel dogs were used. Buccal osseous dehiscences were surgically created on the distal 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: GTR with bioabsorbable membrane (PLA), GTR with non-resorbable membrane (ePTFE), open flap debridement (OFD), and non-treated control (NTC). After 3 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 area.
RESULTS: A superior length of new cementum was observed in the sites treated by GTR, regardless of the type of barrier used, in comparison with OFD (P <0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between PLA and ePTFE in any of the parameters with the exception of bone area. PLA presented a greater bone area when compared to ePTFE, OFD, and NTC (P <0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, it can be concluded that both barriers are equally effective for new cementum formation. The bioabsorbable membrane may provide a greater bone area than the non-resorbable membrane.
METHODS: Six mongrel dogs were used. Buccal osseous dehiscences were surgically created on the distal 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: GTR with bioabsorbable membrane (PLA), GTR with non-resorbable membrane (ePTFE), open flap debridement (OFD), and non-treated control (NTC). After 3 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 area.
RESULTS: A superior length of new cementum was observed in the sites treated by GTR, regardless of the type of barrier used, in comparison with OFD (P <0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between PLA and ePTFE in any of the parameters with the exception of bone area. PLA presented a greater bone area when compared to ePTFE, OFD, and NTC (P <0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, it can be concluded that both barriers are equally effective for new cementum formation. The bioabsorbable membrane may provide a greater bone area than the non-resorbable membrane.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Absorbable ImplantsAlveolar Bone LossAlveolar ProcessAnalysis of VarianceAnimalsConnective TissueDebridementDental CementumDental PlaqueDogsEpitheliumFemaleGingival RecessionGuided Tissue Regeneration, PeriodontalLactic AcidMembranes, ArtificialPeriodontal LigamentPolyestersPolymersPolytetrafluoroethyleneRandom AllocationStatistics, NonparametricTooth RootWound Healing