4.5 Article

Defect-determined regenerative options for treating periodontal intrabony defects in baboons

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 74, 期 1, 页码 10-24

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2003.74.1.10

关键词

animal studies; bone regeneration; comparison studies; grafts; bone; guided tissue regeneration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In an effort to regenerate periodontal intrabony defects, the healing potential of the defect should determine what therapeutic modalities and materials are employed. The purpose of this study was to compare regenerative outcomes in baboon intrabony defects that were contained versus non-contained, using various regenerative therapies. Methods: Nine adult baboons (Papio anubis) in good health were treated. Eighty-six interproximal, intrabony defects were surgically created: 43 contained by 3 walls of bone; 43 non-contained with a missing buccal wall. Chronicity and plaque accumulation were encouraged with wire ligature placement for 8 weeks. After ligature removal, scaling, and a 2- to 4-week healing period, the defects were treated with the following therapies: Collagen membrane (GTR), human demineralized freeze-dried bone (DFDB) grafting (BG), combined therapy (GTR + BG) and a DFDB-glycoprotein sponge matrix (MAT). Clinical healing responses were evaluated in 58 sites by changes in soft tissue (recession, probing, clinical attachment) and hard tissue (resorption, defect fill) parameters 6 months post-treatment. Histologic evaluation (defect regeneration, connective tissue attachment, epithelial migration) was done on 26 sites. Results: For contained defects, no real significant clinical (ANOVA) or histologic differences existed among treatments. However, for non-contained defects, combined therapy (GTR + BG) demonstrated clinically significant (Pless than or equal to0.05, ANOVA) and histologically superior healing results over the other therapies tested. Conclusion: These results confirm a defect morphology directed rationale for periodontal intrabony therapy.

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