4.1 Article

Comparison Between Interpositional Bone Grafting and Osteogenic Alveolar Distraction in Alveolar Bone Reconstruction

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 68, 期 8, 页码 1853-1858

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.09.073

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the quality and quantity of bone produced by alveolar distraction and interpositional bone grafting. Patients and Methods: Twelve patients requiring alveolar reconstruction were randomly divided into 2 groups. Six patients were treated with alveolar distraction osteogenesis, and 6 were treated with the sandwich osteotomy technique and tibial bone grafting. Bone width and vestibular depth were measured before alveolar reconstruction and after reconstruction. Computed tomography bone densitometry was performed to evaluate the densities of the new bones. Results: In the alveolar distraction group, the mean alveolar bone width and vestibular depth were 10.6 mm and 7.5 mm, respectively, preoperatively. The postoperative values were 10.1 mm and 9.6 mm, respectively. Newly formed bone had a mean density of 512.5 Hounsfield units (HU) compared with 796.3 HU for surrounding bone. In the bone grafting group, the mean alveolar bone width and vestibular depth were 10.5 mm and 7.8 mm, respectively, preoperatively. The postoperative values were 11.5 mm and 6.8 mm, respectively. Newly formed bone had a mean density of 490.6 HU compared with 795.6 HU for surrounding bone. Conclusion: There was no significant difference between the amount of bone width produced by each of the techniques. The changes in vestibular depth were also insignificant. Compared with the surrounding bone, the density of new bone was reduced with both techniques, but the density of the bone graft was significantly lower than the density of bone newly formed by alveolar distraction. (c) 2010 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:1853-1858, 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据