A Comparison of the Application between Different Proportional nHA / PLA in Alveolar Bone Preservation

Article Preview

Abstract:

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of different proportional nHA / PLA application in alveolar bone preservation. Methods: After extraction, apply extraction socket filling based on the alveolar bone defect model due to absorption in Beagle dog. Implant materials are divided into 3 different groups: nHA / PLAI, nHA / PLAII and the control group. Samples of the alveolar bone were collected at Week 4 and 8, respectively for the bone resorption assessment, bone density measurement, and histological examination. Results: After nHA / PLA implantation, the alveolar bone preservation was significantly improved. There was no difference in the alveolar bone preservation between the nHA / PLAI and nHA / PLAII groups. However, the sample which are 8w from group I, have higher bone density and have complete absorption in their dental material nest .Therefore group I is better than group II. Conclusions: The results can provide a reliable basis for the application of alveolar bone preservation in basic research and selection of clinical materials.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 602-603)

Pages:

615-619

Citation:

Online since:

March 2014

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2014 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

* - Corresponding Author

[1] Chackartchi T, Stabholz A. Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim. 2013; 30 (2): 65-75, 83.

Google Scholar

[2] Kawakami PY, Dottore AM, Bechara K, et al. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24 (9): 1060-4.

Google Scholar

[3] Liu Y, Liu S, Su X. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013; 133 (1): 125 -33.

Google Scholar

[4] Yin L, Hui YX, Yao JW. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2009; 27 (5): 492-5.

Google Scholar

[5] Ghanaati SM, Thimm BW, Unger RE, et al. Biomed Mater. 2010; 5 (2): 25004.

Google Scholar

[6] Mao X, Chu CL, Mao Z, Wang JJ. Tissue Cell. 2005; 37 (5): 349-57.

Google Scholar

[7] Oberle A, Theiss F, Bohner M, et al., Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2005; 147 (11): 482-90.

Google Scholar

[8] Kubo T, Doi K, Hayashi K, et al. J Prosthodont Res. 2011; 55 (2): 104-9.

Google Scholar

[9] Holzapfel AM, Mangat DS, Barron DS. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2008; 10 (5): 335-8.

Google Scholar

[10] Vagefi MR, McMullan TF, McCann JD, Anderson RL. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008; 24 (3): 190-3.

Google Scholar

[11] Peraire C, Arias JL, Bernal D, et al. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2006; 77 (2): 370 -9.

Google Scholar

[12] Blahout RM, Hienz S, Solar P, et al. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22 (4): 609-615.

Google Scholar

[13] Calasans-Maia M, Resende R, Fernandes G. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Aug 13. Doi: 10. 1111/clr. 12237. [Epub ahead of print].

Google Scholar

[14] Al-Sabbagh M, Burt J, Barakat A. J Int Acad Periodontol. 2013; 15 (3): 91-8.

Google Scholar

[15] Frankenburg EP, Goldstein SA, Bauer TW, et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998; 80 (8): 1112 -1124.

Google Scholar

[16] Gerlach KL, Niehues D. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 2007; 11 (3): 131-7.

Google Scholar

[17] Braye F, Irigaray JL, Kallor E, et al. Biomaterials. 1996; 17 (13): 1345-1350.

Google Scholar

[18] Roldan JC, Jepesen S, Miller J, et al. Bone. 2004; 34 (1): 80-90.

Google Scholar