Comparison of bioabsorbable and bioinert membranes for guided bone regeneration around non-submerged implants -: An experimental study in the mongrel dog
Comparison of bioabsorbable and bioinert membranes for guided bone regeneration around non-submerged implants -: An experimental study in the mongrel dog
复制标题
DOI：
10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100306.x
复制
发表时间：
1999-06-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Caffesse, RG
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kohal, RJ;Trejo, PM;Caffesse, RG
本临床研究的目的是评估使用不同屏障膜引导非埋藏式种植体周围骨再生的效果。本研究使用了5只成年杂种犬。在拔除所有前磨牙，并在前前磨牙区域进行种植截骨术后，便产生了颊面骨缺损。随后，植入了3个种植体，并用以下3种方式中的一种来处理缺损：a)使用扩张的多孔四氟乙烯膜引导骨再生，b)使用由乙交酯和丙交酯合成的可吸收膜引导骨再生，以及c)不使用膜。在种植体和膜放置后，粘骨膜瓣被重新定位并紧紧地缝合在种植体颈部，以实现非淹没愈合。愈合6个月后，处死动物，进行组织学评价。不同处理组的临床前处理缺陷差异无统计学意义(生物惰性膜组：4.9 mm；对照组：4.8 mm；生物可吸收膜组：4.5 mm)。愈合6个月后，生物惰性膜组约2.5 mm，对照组5.7 mm，生物可吸收膜组6.0 mm。生物惰性膜组与其他两组比较，差异有统计学意义。生物惰性膜组矿化骨-种植体接触率为51.5%，对照组为46.3%，生物可吸收膜组为37.5%。生物惰性膜组与生物可吸收膜组之间差异有统计学意义。本研究的结果表明，在非埋植体周围使用生物惰性e-PTFE膜进行骨再生是可能的。可吸收聚乙醇酸/聚乳酸复合膜未显示出任何骨再生效果，其结果与未应用复合膜的对照组无明显差异。
The aim of this clinical investigation was to evaluate the effect of guided bone regeneration around non-submerged implants using different barrier membranes. Five adult mongrel dogs were used in this investigation. After having all premolars extracted and implant osteotomies performed in the regions of the former premolars, buccal bone defects were created. Subsequently, 3 implants were placed and the defects treated with 1 of the following 3 modalities: a) guided bone regeneration using an expanded porytetrafluoroethylene membrane, b) guided bone regeneration using a bioabsorbable membrane made from a synthetic copolymer of glycolide and lactide and c) no membrane application. Following implant and membrane placement, the mucoperiosteal flaps were repositioned and tightly sutured around the neck of the implants allowing for a non-submerged healing. After a healing period of 6 months, the animals were sacrificed and the specimens processed for histologic evaluation. The clinical pretreatment defects between the different treatment groups were not statistically different (bioinert membrane group: 4.9 mm; control group: 4.8 mm; bioabsorbable membrane group: 4.5 mm). The remaining histological defects after 6 months of healing amounted to approximately 2.5 mm in the bioinert membrane group, 5.7 mm in the control group and 6.0 mm in the bioabsorbable membrane group. A significant difference was observed between the bioinert membrane group and the other 2 groups. The mineralized bone-to-implant contact in the bioinert membrane group was 51.5%, in the control group 46.3% and in the bioabsorbable membrane group 37.5%. The values between the bioinert membrane group and the bioabsorbable membrane group were statistically different. The results of this study indicate that bone regeneration with bioinert e-PTFE membranes around non-submerged implants is possible. The utilized absorbable polyglycolic/polylactid membrane did not show any bone regenerative effect and the results did not differ from the control group without membrane application.