scholarly journals Guided bone regeneration of peri-implant defects with particulated and block xenogenic bone substitutes

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 567-576 ◽  
Author(s):  
Goran I. Benic ◽  
Daniel S. Thoma ◽  
Fernando Muñoz ◽  
Ignacio Sanz Martin ◽  
Ronald E. Jung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Bone Substitutes ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Xenogenic Bone

Guided bone regeneration with particulate vs. block xenogenic bone substitutes: a pilot cone beam computed tomographic investigation

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. e262-e270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Goran I. Benic ◽  
Daniel S. Thoma ◽  
Ronald E. Jung ◽  
Ignacio Sanz-Martin ◽  
Silvan Unger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Bone Substitutes ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Xenogenic Bone

scholarly journals Guided bone regeneration using resorbable membrane and different bone substitutes: Early histological and molecular events

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 409-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Elgali ◽  
Alberto Turri ◽  
Wei Xia ◽  
Birgitta Norlindh ◽  
Anna Johansson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Bone Substitutes ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Molecular Events

Effect of Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2 Associated With a Variety of Bone Substitutes on Vertical Guided Bone Regeneration in Rabbit Calvarium

2013 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 360-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristiane Ibanhes Polo ◽  
Júlio Leonardo Oliveira Lima ◽  
Leandro De Lucca ◽  
Christiano Borges Piacezzi ◽  
Maria da Graça Naclério-Homem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Bone Morphogenetic Protein ◽  
Bone Substitutes ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Human Bone ◽  
Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2 ◽  
Morphogenetic Protein ◽  
Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein ◽  
Recombinant Human Bone

Simultaneous in vivo comparison of bone substitutes in a guided bone regeneration model

Biomaterials ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (22) ◽  
pp. 3195-3200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter Busenlechner ◽  
Stefan Tangl ◽  
Birgit Mair ◽  
Georg Fugger ◽  
Reinhard Gruber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Bone Substitutes ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration

scholarly journals Augmentation Stability of Guided Bone Regeneration for Peri-Implant Dehiscence Defects with L-shaped Porcine-Derived Block Bone Substitute

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (21) ◽  
pp. 6580
Author(s):  
Jae-Hong Lee ◽  
Eun-Hee Jung ◽  
Seong-Nyum Jeong
Keyword(s):  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Wound Dehiscence ◽  
Bone Substitutes ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Hard Tissue ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Subjective Pain ◽  
Membrane Exposure ◽  
Radiographic Changes ◽  
Early Wound

Block bone substitutes have better augmentation stability for guided bone regeneration (GBR) than particulate bone substitutes. This study sought to determine whether GBR with an L-shaped porcine block bone (DPBM-C) differs from GBR with an L-shaped bovine block bone (DBBM-C) based on clinical, radiographic, and volumetric outcomes for peri-implant dehiscence defects. A total of 42 peri-implant defects were grafted with 20 L-shaped DPBM-C and 22 DBBM-C groups. The horizontal and vertical thicknesses of the augmented hard tissue were measured using sagittal cone-beam computed tomography, and the volumetric tissue change was evaluated by stereolithography image superimposition. Postoperative discomfort, early wound healing outcomes, and implant stability were also assessed. Among the clinical (subjective pain and swelling, wound dehiscence, membrane exposure, and periotest values), radiographic (changes in horizontal and vertical hard tissue thickness), and volumetric parameters of the L-shaped DPBM-C and DBBM-C groups during the healing period, only the periotest values showed a statistically significant difference (0.67 ± 1.19, p = 0.042). Within the limitations of this study, an L-shaped DPBM-C is not inferior to an L-shaped DBBM-C based on their clinical, radiographic, and volumetric outcomes for GBR of peri-implant dehiscence defects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document