dc.creatorBORGES, Germana Jayme
dc.creatorNOVAES JR., Arthur Belem
dc.creatorGRISI, Marcio Fernando de Moraes
dc.creatorPALIOTO, Daniela Bazan
dc.creatorTABA JR., Mario
dc.creatorSOUZA, Sergio Luis Scombatti de
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-20T01:21:14Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-04T15:26:52Z
dc.date.available2012-10-20T01:21:14Z
dc.date.available2018-07-04T15:26:52Z
dc.date.created2012-10-20T01:21:14Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifierCLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, v.20, n.10, p.1105-1115, 2009
dc.identifier0905-7161
dc.identifierhttp://producao.usp.br/handle/BDPI/26403
dc.identifier10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01731.x
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01731.x
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1623067
dc.description.abstractObjectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the acellular dermal matrix (ADM) as a membrane for guided bone regeneration (GBR), in comparison with a bioabsorbable membrane. Material and methods In seven dogs, the mandibular pre-molars were extracted. After 8 weeks, one bone defect was surgically created bilaterally and the GBR was performed. Each side was randomly assigned to the control group (CG: bioabsorbable membrane made of glycolide and lactide copolymer) or the test group (TG: ADM as a membrane). Immediately following GBR, standardized digital X-ray radiographs were taken, and were repeated at 8 and 16 weeks post-operatively. Before the GBR and euthanasia, clinical measurements of the width and thickness of the keratinized tissue (WKT and TKT, respectively) were performed. One animal was excluded from the study due to complications in the TG during wound healing; therefore, six dogs remained in the sample. The dogs were sacrificed 16 weeks following GBR, and a histomorphometric analysis was performed. Area measurements of new tissue and new bone, and linear measurements of bone height were performed. Results Post-operative healing of the CG was uneventful. In the TG membrane was exposed in two animals, and one of them was excluded from the sample. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for any histomorphometric measurement. Clinically, both groups showed an increase in the TKT and a reduction in the WKT. Radiographically, an image suggestive of new bone formation could be observed in both groups at 8 and 16 weeks following GBR. Conclusion ADM acted as a barrier in GBR, with clinical, radiographic and histomorphometric results similar to those obtained with the bioabsorbable membrane. To cite this article:Borges GJ, Novaes AB Jr, de Moraes Grisi MF, Palioto DB, Taba M Jr, de Souza SLS. Acellular dermal matrix as a barrier in guided bone regeneration: a clinical, radiographic and histomorphometric study in dogs.Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 20, 2009; 1105-1115.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherWILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
dc.relationClinical Oral Implants Research
dc.rightsCopyright WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
dc.rightsrestrictedAccess
dc.subjectanimal experiments
dc.subjectbiomaterials
dc.subjectbone regeneration
dc.subjectguided tissue regeneration
dc.subjectimaging
dc.subjectmorphometric analysis
dc.subjectradiology
dc.titleAcellular dermal matrix as a barrier in guided bone regeneration: a clinical, radiographic and histomorphometric study in dogs
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución