Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2002
Comparison of 3 bone substitutes in canine extraction sites.
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.
Indovina Anthony, Block Michael S
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the healing response with 3 different bone substitute materials in extraction sites in the dog.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four dogs had their mandibular and maxillary premolars extracted atraumatically. The sites were immediately grafted with anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss, Osteohealth, Shirley, NY), Bone Source (Leibinger, Inc, Kalamazoo, MI), or Embarc (Lorenz Surgical, Jacksonville, FL), or left untreated as a control. After 8 weeks, the sites were removed for histologic evaluation of bone fill and the healing response.
RESULTS: All sites healed well without signs of infection. No significant differences were noted in the shape of the ridges between groups. The control sites had radiographic bone fill by 8 weeks. The Bio-Oss sites showed bone fill with a similar appearance to the control sites. The Bone Source and Embarc sites showed implant material taking up most of the extraction site. In all sites the control and Bio-Oss sites had significantly more bone formation than the Embarc and Bone Source sites (P <.05). The control sites contained woven bone. The Bio-Oss sites were similar to the control sites, but with remnants of Bio-Oss in the bone. The Bone Source and Embarc sites were filled predominantly with the graft material without evidence of resorption and replacement of the materials, and with minimal bone formation.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, the control and Bio-Oss sites were similar, with bone filling most of the extraction site. The other 2 materials did not show replacement with bone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four dogs had their mandibular and maxillary premolars extracted atraumatically. The sites were immediately grafted with anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss, Osteohealth, Shirley, NY), Bone Source (Leibinger, Inc, Kalamazoo, MI), or Embarc (Lorenz Surgical, Jacksonville, FL), or left untreated as a control. After 8 weeks, the sites were removed for histologic evaluation of bone fill and the healing response.
RESULTS: All sites healed well without signs of infection. No significant differences were noted in the shape of the ridges between groups. The control sites had radiographic bone fill by 8 weeks. The Bio-Oss sites showed bone fill with a similar appearance to the control sites. The Bone Source and Embarc sites showed implant material taking up most of the extraction site. In all sites the control and Bio-Oss sites had significantly more bone formation than the Embarc and Bone Source sites (P <.05). The control sites contained woven bone. The Bio-Oss sites were similar to the control sites, but with remnants of Bio-Oss in the bone. The Bone Source and Embarc sites were filled predominantly with the graft material without evidence of resorption and replacement of the materials, and with minimal bone formation.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, the control and Bio-Oss sites were similar, with bone filling most of the extraction site. The other 2 materials did not show replacement with bone.