3.9 Article

The impact of thickness of resorbable membrane of human origin on the ossification of bone defects: a pathohistologic study

Journal

VOJNOSANITETSKI PREGLED
Volume 69, Issue 12, Pages 1076-1083

Publisher

MILITARY MEDICAL ACAD-INI
DOI: 10.2298/VSP1212076B

Keywords

guided tissue regeneration; mandible; dogs; membranes, artificial

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aim. A wide range of resorbable and non-resorbable membranes have been investigated over the last two decades. The barrier membrane protects the defect from ingrowth of soft tissue cells and allows bone progenitor cells to develop bone within a blood clot that is formed beneath the barrier membrane. The membranes are applied to reconstruct small bony defect prior to implantation, to cover dehiscences and fenestrations around dental implants. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of human resorbable demineralized membrane (RHDM) thickness on bone regeneration. Methods. The experiment, approved by Ethical Committee, was performed on 6 dogs and conducted into three phases. Bone defects were created in all the 6 dogs on the left side of the mandible, 8 weeks after extraction of second, third and fourth premolars. One defect was covered with RHDM 100 mu thick, one with RHDM 200 mu thick, and the third defect left empty (control defect). The histopathological analysis was done 2, 4 and 6 months after the surgery. In the third phase samples of bone tissue were taken and subjected to histopathological analysis. Results. In all the 6 dogs the defects treated with RHDM 200 mu thick showed higher level of bone regeneration in comparison with the defect treated with RHDM 100 mu thick and especially with empty defect. Conclusion. Our results demonstrated that the thicker membrane showed the least soft tissue ingrowths and promoted better bone formation at 6 months compared with a thinner one.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available