Enamel matrix derivative versus guided tissue regeneration in the presence of nicotine: a histomorphometric study in dogs

dc.creatorPimentel, SP
dc.creatorSallum, AW
dc.creatorSaldanha, JB
dc.creatorCasati, MZ
dc.creatorNociti, FH
dc.creatorSallum, EA
dc.date2006
dc.dateDEC
dc.date2014-11-20T06:02:23Z
dc.date2015-11-26T17:15:49Z
dc.date2014-11-20T06:02:23Z
dc.date2015-11-26T17:15:49Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-29T00:04:02Z
dc.date.available2018-03-29T00:04:02Z
dc.identifierJournal Of Clinical Periodontology. Blackwell Publishing, v. 33, n. 12, n. 900, n. 907, 2006.
dc.identifier0303-6979
dc.identifierWOS:000242441600007
dc.identifier10.1111/j.1600-051X.200600989.x
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/64718
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/handle/REPOSIP/64718
dc.identifierhttp://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/64718
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1282138
dc.descriptionAim: The goal of this histometric study was to compare the healing process of dehiscence-type defects treated by enamel matrix derivative (EMD) or guided tissue regeneration (GTR) under the effect of nicotine in the dog model. Materials and Methods: Eight mongrel dogs were used. Buccal osseous dehiscences were surgically created on the mesial roots of the mandibular third and fourth premolars. The defects were exposed to plaque accumulation for 3 months. After this period, the defects were randomly assigned to one of the treatments: open flap debridement (OFD), EMD or GTR with a resorbable membrane. During 4 months, the dogs received subcutaneous administration of nicotine (2 mg/kg twice a day with a 12 It interval between the applications). After this period, the animals were killed and the blocks were processed. The histometric parameters evaluated included gingival recession, epithelial length, connective tissue adaptation, new cementum and new bone. Results: A superior length of new cementum was observed in the sites treated by EMD in comparison with OFD (p <= 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between GTR and the other groups. Conclusions: In the presence of nicotine, EMD may promote more new cementum formation than OFD while GTR failed to provide a significant difference.
dc.description33
dc.description12
dc.description900
dc.description907
dc.languageen
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing
dc.publisherOxford
dc.publisherInglaterra
dc.relationJournal Of Clinical Periodontology
dc.relationJ. Clin. Periodontol.
dc.rightsfechado
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectenamel matrix derivative
dc.subjectguided tissue regeneration
dc.subjectnicotine
dc.subjectperiodontal regeneration
dc.subjectDehiscence-type Defects
dc.subjectGingival Blood-flow
dc.subjectPeriodontal-ligament Fibroblasts
dc.subjectHealing Following Implantation
dc.subjectControlled Clinical-trial
dc.subjectIntrabony Defects
dc.subjectAttachment Formation
dc.subjectCigarette-smoking
dc.subjectIn-vitro
dc.subjectBioabsorbable Membranes
dc.titleEnamel matrix derivative versus guided tissue regeneration in the presence of nicotine: a histomorphometric study in dogs
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución