Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2024
Critical-sized marginal defects around implants in the rabbit mandible.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Morimoto Akihiro, Porfirio Xavier Samuel, Ricardo Silva Erick, Morinaga Kenzo, Botticelli Daniele, Nakajima Yasushi, Baba Shunsuke
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The mandible of the rabbit is considered a reliable model to be used to study bone regeneration in defects. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the formation of new bone around implants installed in defects of either 5 or 10 mm in the mandible of rabbits.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 12 rabbits, 3 mm deep circumferential defect, either 5 or 10 mm in diameter, were prepared bilaterally and an implant was placed in the center. A collagen membrane was placed to close the entrance. After 10 weeks, biopsies were taken, histological slides were prepared, and different regions of the defects were analyzed.
RESULTS: Similar amounts of new bone were found in both defects. However, most of the 5 mm defects were filled with new bone. New bone was observed closing the entrance of the defect and laid onto the implant surface. Only in a few cases the healing was incomplete. Despite a similar percentage of new bone found within the 10 mm defects, the healing was incomplete in most of the cases, presenting a low rate of bone formation onto the implant surface within the defect. Only one case presented the closure of the entrance.
CONCLUSIONS: The dimensions of the defect strongly influenced the healing so that a circumferential marginal defect of 10 mm around an implant in the mandible body should be considered a critical-sized defect. The presence of the implant and of residues of teeth might have strongly influenced the healing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 12 rabbits, 3 mm deep circumferential defect, either 5 or 10 mm in diameter, were prepared bilaterally and an implant was placed in the center. A collagen membrane was placed to close the entrance. After 10 weeks, biopsies were taken, histological slides were prepared, and different regions of the defects were analyzed.
RESULTS: Similar amounts of new bone were found in both defects. However, most of the 5 mm defects were filled with new bone. New bone was observed closing the entrance of the defect and laid onto the implant surface. Only in a few cases the healing was incomplete. Despite a similar percentage of new bone found within the 10 mm defects, the healing was incomplete in most of the cases, presenting a low rate of bone formation onto the implant surface within the defect. Only one case presented the closure of the entrance.
CONCLUSIONS: The dimensions of the defect strongly influenced the healing so that a circumferential marginal defect of 10 mm around an implant in the mandible body should be considered a critical-sized defect. The presence of the implant and of residues of teeth might have strongly influenced the healing.