dc.creatorCasati, MZ
dc.creatorSallum, EA
dc.creatorNociti, FH
dc.creatorCaffesse, RG
dc.creatorSallum, AW
dc.date2002
dc.dateJUL
dc.date2014-11-20T05:50:41Z
dc.date2015-11-26T16:07:19Z
dc.date2014-11-20T05:50:41Z
dc.date2015-11-26T16:07:19Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-28T22:56:00Z
dc.date.available2018-03-28T22:56:00Z
dc.identifierJournal Of Periodontology. Amer Acad Periodontology, v. 73, n. 7, n. 789, n. 796, 2002.
dc.identifier0022-3492
dc.identifierWOS:000176992800014
dc.identifier10.1902/jop.2002.73.7.789
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/64715
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/handle/REPOSIP/64715
dc.identifierhttp://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/64715
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1266105
dc.descriptionBackground: The goal of this investigation was to histometrically evaluate the effect of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on bone healing after guided bone regeneration (GBR) in dehiscence-type osseous defects around dental implants; i.e., in the absence of periodontal ligament cells. Methods: Six mongrel dogs were used. The second, third, and fourth mandibular premolars (p2, p3, and p4) and first molars (ml) were extracted. After 3 months, 2 implant osteotomies were prepared in each side of the mandible, dehiscence-type defects were created on the buccal aspect of each implant osteotomy (3.5 mm x 5.0 mm), and titanium implants were placed (3.75 mm x 8.5 mm). The surgically-created defects were randomly assigned to one of the treatments: EMD, GBR, EMD+GBR, or control. After 2 months, 4 additional defects were created and treated. The animals were sacrificed 3 months after the placement of the first implants, thus allowing the healing periods of 1 and 3 months. Undecalcified sections were obtained for the histometric evaluation including the percentage of bone-to-implant contact and new bone area on the implant threads related to the defect. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed among the groups in the evaluated parameters after 1 month of healing. After 3 months, no statistically significant differences were observed among the groups for the percentage of bone-to-implant contact. The values for the new bone area were: 55.5 +/- 11.8, 53.8 +/- 16.3, 62.1 +/- 18.4, and 36.9 +/- 25.1 for EMD, GBR, EMD+GBR, and control, respectively. The difference between EMD+GBR and control was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, it can be concluded that EMD may positively influence bone healing after GBR around titanium implants. EMD alone, however, had no statistically significant effect.
dc.description73
dc.description7
dc.description789
dc.description796
dc.languageen
dc.publisherAmer Acad Periodontology
dc.publisherChicago
dc.publisherEUA
dc.relationJournal Of Periodontology
dc.relationJ. Periodont.
dc.rightsfechado
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectguided bone regeneration
dc.subjectenamel matrix derivative
dc.subjectdental implants
dc.subjecttitanium
dc.subjectFreeze-dried Bone
dc.subjectTissue Regeneration
dc.subjectPeriodontal Regeneration
dc.subjectNonresorbable Membranes
dc.subjectIn-vitro
dc.subjectPart I
dc.subjectCombination
dc.subjectBarrier
dc.subjectMonkey
dc.subjectCells
dc.titleEnamel matrix derivative and bone healing after guided bone regeneration in dehiscence-type defects around implants. A histomorphometric study in dogs
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución