dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.creatorde Oliveira, C. A.
dc.creatorSpolidório, Luis Carlos
dc.creatorCirelli, Joni Augusto
dc.creatorMarcantonio, Rosemary Adriana Chierici
dc.date2014-02-26T17:23:51Z
dc.date2014-05-20T13:45:06Z
dc.date2016-10-25T16:59:11Z
dc.date2014-02-26T17:23:51Z
dc.date2014-05-20T13:45:06Z
dc.date2016-10-25T16:59:11Z
dc.date2005-12-01
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-05T20:51:11Z
dc.date.available2017-04-05T20:51:11Z
dc.identifierInternational Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry. Hanover Park: Quintessence Publishing Co Inc., v. 25, n. 6, p. 595-603, 2005.
dc.identifier0198-7569
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/15841
dc.identifierhttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/15841
dc.identifierWOS:000234009400007
dc.identifierhttp://www.quintpub.com/journals/prd/abstract.php?article_id=2053#.UulUx7RTvIU
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/862763
dc.descriptionGingival recession was created in six mongrel dogs. The dogs were divided into two groups based on treatment: group 1-AlloDerm only, group 2-AlloDerm + Emdogain. The histologic results were compared. At the end of the study, the mean values were, for groups I and 2, respectively: 0.06 and 0.32 mm for cementum regeneration; -0.75 and -0.86 mm for bone regeneration; -2.15 and -3.11 mm for attachment level; and 4.90 and 5.51 mm for defect extent. The epithelial formation parameter was 2.88 mm in group 1 and 2.15 mm in group 2, which was a statistically significant difference. It could be concluded that Emdogain did not result in beneficial effects when associated with AlloDerm.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherQuintessence Publishing Co Inc
dc.relationInternational Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.titleAcellular dermal matrix allograft used alone and in combination with enamel matrix protein in gingival recession: Histologic study in dogs
dc.typeOtro


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución