Shanghai kou qiang yi xue = Shanghai journal of stomatology · 2022
[Effect evaluation on different treatment methods of the gap of immediate implantation in canine posterior mandible].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Zhang Yi-Wen, Zou Duo-Hong, Zhang Zhi-Yuan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study was aimed to explore the formation of new bone after different methods of filling the gap between the extraction socket and the implant in immediate implantation of the canine mandibular molar area.
METHODS: Six Labrador dogs aged 1.5-2.0 years were used as the experimental subjects. The fourth premolar and the first molar were extracted from the mandible of each dog, and then 4 dental implants (Astra Tech, 4.0 mm × 10 mm) were implanted respectively. The mesial and distal gaps between dental implants and the walls of extraction socket were treated in three methods: blank group (group NN), gelatin sponge with colloidal silver (Gelatamp) group (group EN), Gelatamp + absorbable collagen membrane (CM) group (group EG). At 12 weeks, the dogs were euthanized, and specimens were collected for micro-CT scanning and histological analysis. SPSS 25.0 software package was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: The survival rate at 12 weeks after implantation was 100%. Micro-CT scan results showed no significant differences in new bone height, bone mineral density (BMD), bone volume fraction (BV/TV), bone surface area bone volume ratio (BS/TV), bone trabecular thickness (Tb.Th), bone trabecular number (Tb.N) and bone trabecular separation (Tb.Sp) among different groups. Histological analysis showed no significant differences in the area of new bone formation and bone-implant contact (BIC).
CONCLUSIONS: After different treatments are performed on the gap between implants and extraction sockets, Gelatamp alone or in combination with CM has no significant effect on new bone formation, BIC, BMD, BV/TV, BS/TV, Tb.Th, Tb.N and Tb.Sp around implant.
METHODS: Six Labrador dogs aged 1.5-2.0 years were used as the experimental subjects. The fourth premolar and the first molar were extracted from the mandible of each dog, and then 4 dental implants (Astra Tech, 4.0 mm × 10 mm) were implanted respectively. The mesial and distal gaps between dental implants and the walls of extraction socket were treated in three methods: blank group (group NN), gelatin sponge with colloidal silver (Gelatamp) group (group EN), Gelatamp + absorbable collagen membrane (CM) group (group EG). At 12 weeks, the dogs were euthanized, and specimens were collected for micro-CT scanning and histological analysis. SPSS 25.0 software package was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: The survival rate at 12 weeks after implantation was 100%. Micro-CT scan results showed no significant differences in new bone height, bone mineral density (BMD), bone volume fraction (BV/TV), bone surface area bone volume ratio (BS/TV), bone trabecular thickness (Tb.Th), bone trabecular number (Tb.N) and bone trabecular separation (Tb.Sp) among different groups. Histological analysis showed no significant differences in the area of new bone formation and bone-implant contact (BIC).
CONCLUSIONS: After different treatments are performed on the gap between implants and extraction sockets, Gelatamp alone or in combination with CM has no significant effect on new bone formation, BIC, BMD, BV/TV, BS/TV, Tb.Th, Tb.N and Tb.Sp around implant.