Osseointegration of dental implants placed into canine mandibular bone regenerated by bone transport distraction osteogenesis.
Osseointegration of dental implants placed into canine mandibular bone regenerated by bone transport distraction osteogenesis.
复制标题
植入犬下颌骨的牙种植体的骨整合通过骨运输牵引成骨进行再生。
DOI：
10.11607/jomi.2977
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Opperman,LynneA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kontogiorgos,Elias;Elsalanty,MohammedE;Zakhary,Ibrahim;Nagy,WilliamW;Dechow,PaulC;Opperman,LynneA
目的：本研究的目的是比较牙种植体植入犬下颌骨和骨运输牵张成骨再生骨的骨整合情况。材料与方法：将10只成年猎犬分为两组，每组5只。在所有动物中，下颌骨一侧都有40毫米的缺损。骨运输重建板用于稳定下颌骨和再生骨。牵张期结束6周后，在再生和原生下颌骨中放置种植体。这些动物分别在6周和12周愈合后被处死。结果：骨体积分数（BV/TV）在种植体冠状区较高，在种植体根尖区较低。再生骨植入物周围的BV/TV在愈合后6至12周内有所增加。再生组在6周时的BV/TV低于植入原生骨的BV/TV，但在12周时达到了与原生骨相同的水平。组织学显示，在两个时间段内，放置在天然骨中的种植体与种植体的直接接触要大于放置在再生骨中的种植体。6周时，植入原生骨的移除扭矩高于植入再生骨的移除扭矩。12周时，两组间去除扭矩无统计学差异。结论：所有动物骨均成功再生。移植体完全植入再生骨，实现骨整合。随着时间的推移，植入物周围的再生骨变得更加致密。这一发现表明，在植入12周后，完全植入再生骨的种植体将与植入原生下颌骨的种植体整合得一样好。
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the osseointegration of dental implants placed in canine mandibular bone and in regenerated bone produced by bone transport distraction osteogenesis. Materials and Methods: Ten adult foxhounds were divided into two groups of five animals each. In all animals, a 40-mm defect was created on one side of the mandible. A bone transport reconstruction plate was used to stabilize the mandible and regenerate bone. Six weeks after the distraction period was finished, dental implants were placed in regenerated and native mandibular bone. The animals were sacrificed after another 6 and 12 weeks of healing, respectively. Results: Microcomputed tomographic evaluation showed that bone volume fraction (BV/TV) was greater at the coronal regions of the implants and decreased toward the apical regions. There was an increase in BV/TV around implants placed in regenerated bone from 6 to 12 weeks of healing. The regenerated group showed lower BV/TV at 6 weeks versus implants placed in native bone but had reached the same levels as the native bone at 12 weeks. Histology showed that direct bone-to-implant contact was greater for implants placed in native bone than for those placed in regenerated bone for both time periods. The removal torque of the implants placed in native bone was higher at 6 weeks than that of implants placed in regenerated bone. At 12 weeks, there were no statistically significant differences in removal torque between the groups. Conclusions: Bone was successfully regenerated in all animals. The implants placed entirely in regenerated bone were osseointegrated. The regenerated bone around the implants became denser over time. This finding suggests that implants placed entirely in regenerated bone will be as well integrated as implants in native mandibular bone by 12 weeks after placement.