File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Bone formation by enamel matrix proteins and xenografts: An experimental study in the rat ramus

TitleBone formation by enamel matrix proteins and xenografts: An experimental study in the rat ramus
Authors
Issue Date2005
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
Citation
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2005, v. 16 n. 2, p. 140-146 How to Cite?
AbstractThe aim of this study was to evaluate whether the use of enamel matrix proteins with or without the use of deproteinized bovine bone influences bone formation when used as an adjunct to guided bone regeneration (GBR). Twenty rats, divided into four groups of five animals each, were used in this study. Group A1: A hemispherical PTFE capsule was placed empty on the lateral aspect of the mandibular ramus (GBR). At the contralateral side of the jaw, the capsule was filled with an enamel matrix derivative (EMD) before its placement. The healing period was 60 days. Group A2: The animals were treated in the same manner as in Group A1 but with a healing period of 120 days. Group B1: The animals were treated in the same manner as in Group A1 with the difference that deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) particles were packed in the capsule. At the contralateral side of the jaw, the capsule was filled with a mixture of EMD and DBBM. The healing period was 60 days. Group B2: The same treatment as in B1 but with a healing period of 120 days. The histological analysis revealed that in Groups A1 and A2 newly formed bone was covering a significant part of the empty capsules (GBR). The use of EMD in the capsule did not offer any added benefit to the use of the capsule alone in terms of new bone formation. At Groups B1 and B2, the presence of DBBM and/or EMD did not positively affect the amount of new bone formation. It can be suggested that neither the application of EMD nor the use of DBBM or the combination of EMD and DBBM results in enhanced amounts of bone formation in comparison with the GBR procedure alone. Copyright © Blackwell Munksgaard 2004.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154326
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.464
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.427
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDonos, Nen_US
dc.contributor.authorBosshardt, Den_US
dc.contributor.authorLang, Nen_US
dc.contributor.authorGraziani, Fen_US
dc.contributor.authorTonetti, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorKarring, Ten_US
dc.contributor.authorKostopoulos, Len_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T08:24:37Z-
dc.date.available2012-08-08T08:24:37Z-
dc.date.issued2005en_US
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2005, v. 16 n. 2, p. 140-146en_US
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154326-
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to evaluate whether the use of enamel matrix proteins with or without the use of deproteinized bovine bone influences bone formation when used as an adjunct to guided bone regeneration (GBR). Twenty rats, divided into four groups of five animals each, were used in this study. Group A1: A hemispherical PTFE capsule was placed empty on the lateral aspect of the mandibular ramus (GBR). At the contralateral side of the jaw, the capsule was filled with an enamel matrix derivative (EMD) before its placement. The healing period was 60 days. Group A2: The animals were treated in the same manner as in Group A1 but with a healing period of 120 days. Group B1: The animals were treated in the same manner as in Group A1 with the difference that deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) particles were packed in the capsule. At the contralateral side of the jaw, the capsule was filled with a mixture of EMD and DBBM. The healing period was 60 days. Group B2: The same treatment as in B1 but with a healing period of 120 days. The histological analysis revealed that in Groups A1 and A2 newly formed bone was covering a significant part of the empty capsules (GBR). The use of EMD in the capsule did not offer any added benefit to the use of the capsule alone in terms of new bone formation. At Groups B1 and B2, the presence of DBBM and/or EMD did not positively affect the amount of new bone formation. It can be suggested that neither the application of EMD nor the use of DBBM or the combination of EMD and DBBM results in enhanced amounts of bone formation in comparison with the GBR procedure alone. Copyright © Blackwell Munksgaard 2004.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLRen_US
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Researchen_US
dc.subject.meshAnimalsen_US
dc.subject.meshBone Matrix - Transplantationen_US
dc.subject.meshBone Regenerationen_US
dc.subject.meshBone Substitutes - Therapeutic Useen_US
dc.subject.meshBone Transplantation - Methodsen_US
dc.subject.meshCattleen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Enamel Proteins - Therapeutic Useen_US
dc.subject.meshGuided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - Methodsen_US
dc.subject.meshMaleen_US
dc.subject.meshMandible - Surgeryen_US
dc.subject.meshRatsen_US
dc.subject.meshTransplantation, Heterologous - Methodsen_US
dc.titleBone formation by enamel matrix proteins and xenografts: An experimental study in the rat ramusen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailLang, N:nplang@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityLang, N=rp00031en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01088.xen_US
dc.identifier.pmid15777322-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-18744410662en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-18744410662&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume16en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.spage140en_US
dc.identifier.epage146en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000227774600002-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridDonos, N=7004314492en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBosshardt, D=6603806230en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLang, N=7201577367en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridGraziani, F=36879606000en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTonetti, M=35602248900en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridKarring, T=35560651200en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridKostopoulos, L=6603960784en_US
dc.identifier.citeulike132104-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats