Enamel Matrix Derivative Versus Guided Tissue Regeneration In The Presence Of Nicotine: A Histomorphometric Study In Dogs.

dc.creatorPimentel, Suzana Peres
dc.creatorSallum, Antonio Wilson
dc.creatorSaldanha, Juliana Bezerra
dc.creatorCasati, Márcio Zaffalon
dc.creatorNociti, Francisco H
dc.creatorSallum, Enilson A
dc.date2006-Dec
dc.date2015-11-27T13:05:51Z
dc.date2015-11-27T13:05:51Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-29T01:03:29Z
dc.date.available2018-03-29T01:03:29Z
dc.identifierJournal Of Clinical Periodontology. v. 33, n. 12, p. 900-7, 2006-Dec.
dc.identifier0303-6979
dc.identifier10.1111/j.1600-051X.2006.00989.x
dc.identifierhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16970622
dc.identifierhttp://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/196941
dc.identifier16970622
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1297174
dc.descriptionThe 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. Eight mongrel dogs were used. Buccal osseous dehiscences were surgically created on the mesial roots of the mandibular third and fourth pre-molars. 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 h 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. A superior length of new cementum was observed in the sites treated by EMD in comparison with OFD (p< or =0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between GTR and the other groups. 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.description900-7
dc.languageeng
dc.relationJournal Of Clinical Periodontology
dc.relationJ. Clin. Periodontol.
dc.rightsfechado
dc.rights
dc.sourcePubMed
dc.subjectAbsorbable Implants
dc.subjectAlveolar Bone Loss
dc.subjectAlveolar Process
dc.subjectAnimals
dc.subjectBiocompatible Materials
dc.subjectConnective Tissue
dc.subjectCotinine
dc.subjectDebridement
dc.subjectDental Cementum
dc.subjectDental Enamel Proteins
dc.subjectDental Plaque
dc.subjectDisease Models, Animal
dc.subjectDogs
dc.subjectEpithelial Attachment
dc.subjectGingival Recession
dc.subjectGuided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal
dc.subjectInjections, Subcutaneous
dc.subjectMembranes, Artificial
dc.subjectNicotine
dc.subjectNicotinic Agonists
dc.subjectRandom Allocation
dc.subjectSurgical Flaps
dc.subjectWound Healing
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