4.5 Article

Treatment of ligature-induced peri-implantitis by lethal photosensitization and guided bone regeneration: A preliminary histologic study in dogs

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 74, 期 3, 页码 338-345

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2003.74.3.338

关键词

animal studies; dental implants; guided bone regeneration; osseointegration; peri-implant diseases/therapy; photochemotherapy; photosensitizing agents

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the healing potential and reosseointegration in ligature-induced peri-implantitis defects adjacent to various dental implant surfaces following lethal photosensitization. Methods: A total of 36 dental implants with 4 different surface coatings (9 commercially pure titanium surface [CPTi]; 9 titanium plasma-sprayed [TPS]; 9 hydroxyapatite [HA]; and 9 acid-etched [AE]) were inserted in 6 male mongrel dogs 3 months after extraction of mandibular premolars. After a 2-month period of ligature-induced peri-implantitis and 12 months of natural peri-implantitis progression, only 19 dental implants remained. The dogs underwent surgical debridement of the remaining dental implant sites and lethal photosensitization by combination of toluidine blue O (100 mug/ml) and irradiation with diode laser. All exposed dental implant surfaces and bone craters were meticulously cleaned by mechanical means, submitted to photodynamic therapy, and guided bone regeneration (GBR) using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membranes. Five months later, biopsies of the implant sites were dissected and prepared for ground sectioning and analysis. Results: The percentage of bone fill was HA: 48.28 +/- 15.00; TPS: 39.54 +/- 12.34; AE: 26.88 +/- 22.16; and CPTi: 26.70 +/- 16.50. The percentage of reosseointegration was TPS: 25.25 +/- 11.96; CPTi: 24.91 +/- 17.78; AE: 17.30 +/- 15.41; and HA: 15.83 +/- 9.64. Conclusion: These data suggest that lethal photosensitization may have potential in the treatment of peri-implantitis.

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

4.5
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