Enamel matrix derivative and guided tissue regeneration in the treatment of dehiscence-type defects: A histomorphometric study in dogs

dc.creatorSallum, EA
dc.creatorPimentel, SP
dc.creatorSaldanha, JB
dc.creatorNogueira, GR
dc.creatorCasati, MZ
dc.creatorNociti, FH
dc.creatorSallum, AW
dc.date2004
dc.dateOCT
dc.date2014-11-20T06:00:47Z
dc.date2015-11-26T17:15:49Z
dc.date2014-11-20T06:00:47Z
dc.date2015-11-26T17:15:49Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-29T00:04:02Z
dc.date.available2018-03-29T00:04:02Z
dc.identifierJournal Of Periodontology. Amer Acad Periodontology, v. 75, n. 10, n. 1357, n. 1363, 2004.
dc.identifier0022-3492
dc.identifierWOS:000224772100009
dc.identifier10.1902/jop.2004.75.10.1357
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/64716
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/handle/REPOSIP/64716
dc.identifierhttp://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/64716
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1282136
dc.descriptionBackground: The goal of this investigation was to histologically and histometrically evaluate the healing process of dehiscence-type defects treated by enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and/or guided tissue regeneration (GTR). Methods: Seven 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), enamel matrix derivative (EMD), GTR with bioabsorbable membrane (GTR), and the combination of both procedures (EMD + GTR). After 4 months of healing, the dogs were sacrificed 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 (3.7 mm) and EMD + GTR (3.8 mm) in comparison with OFD (2.4 mm) (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found in the remaining histometric parameters. Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, it can be concluded that EMD alone or in combination with GTR barriers may effectively promote new cementum formation. The combination of both therapies may not provide additional benefits.
dc.description75
dc.description10
dc.description1357
dc.description1363
dc.languageen
dc.publisherAmer Acad Periodontology
dc.publisherChicago
dc.publisherEUA
dc.relationJournal Of Periodontology
dc.relationJ. Periodont.
dc.rightsfechado
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectanimal studies
dc.subjectcomparison studies
dc.subjectdental cementum
dc.subjectenamel matrix derivative
dc.subjectguided tissue regeneration
dc.subjectsurgical flaps
dc.subjectIntrabony Periodontal Defects
dc.subjectHealing Following Implantation
dc.subjectBovine-derived Xenograft
dc.subjectAttachment Formation
dc.subjectFurcation Defects
dc.subjectMandibular Molars
dc.subjectOsseous Defects
dc.subjectAffected Roots
dc.subjectBeagle Dogs
dc.subjectIn-vitro
dc.titleEnamel matrix derivative and guided tissue regeneration in the treatment of dehiscence-type defects: A histomorphometric study in dogs
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución