4.4 Article

The effect of the heights and thicknesses of the remaining root segments on buccal bone resorption in the socket-shield technique: An experimental study in dogs

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cid.12588

关键词

alveolar bone preservation; animal study; immediate implant; socket-shield technique

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundTo date only a few studies have been done on the use of the socket-shield technique for preserving the resorption of the buccal bone in aesthetically sensitive sites. Besides, there have been no further studies on the effect of the heights and thicknesses of the remaining root segments on buccal bone resorption when using this method. PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different heights and thicknesses of the remaining root segments on bone resorption in the socket-shield technique. Materials and MethodsFour healthy female beagle dogs were used in this study. The third premolar (P3) and the fourth premolar (P4) on both sides of the mandible were hemisected in the buccal-lingual direction, and the clinical crown of the distal root was beheaded. In the experimental groups, the roots were worn down in the apical direction until they were located at the buccal crestal level (Group A) or 1 mm higher than that level (Group B). In the control group, the distal root segments were extracted. Then, implant placement was performed into the distal root. After 3 months of healing, the specimens were prepared for histological diagnosis. ResultsThere was no difference between Group A and Group B when using the socket-shield technique, but the results of both groups were better than those of the control group. ConclusionsThe height of the root segments has little effect on the bone absorption of alveolar bone, while the bone absorption was strongly influenced by the thickness of the root segments. More precisely, the absorption may decrease if the thickness of the root fragment increases, when the thickness of the root plate is in the 0.5-1.5 mm range.

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

4.4
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