File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Effect of GBR in combination with deproteinized bovine bone mineral and/ or enamel matrix proteins on the healing of critical-size defects

TitleEffect of GBR in combination with deproteinized bovine bone mineral and/ or enamel matrix proteins on the healing of critical-size defects
Authors
Issue Date2004
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
Citation
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2004, v. 15 n. 1, p. 101-111 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: To evaluate the effect of guided bone regeneration (GBR) in combination with or without deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and/or an enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on the healing of critical-size calvarial defects. Material and methods: Forty rats were used. In all animals, a standardized critical-size calvarial defect was created surgically. The animals were randomly allocated into 4 groups of 10 animals each. Group A: One calvarial defect was left untreated, while the galeal and the cerebral aspect of the contralateral defect were covered with a bioresorbable membrane (GBR). Group B: One calvarial defect was filled with EMD, while the contralateral defect was treated with GBR and EMD. Group C: One defect was filled with DBBM, while the contralateral defect was treated with combination of GBR and DBBM. Group D: One defect was filled with DBBM combined with EMD, while the contralateral defect was treated with combination of GBR, DBBM and EMD. The healing period was 4 months. Five specimens from each group were macerated and the length, the width and the vertical dimension (thickness) of the remaining defect were evaluated by a stereomicroscope. The remaining specimens in each group were analyzed histologically. Results: The defects of the macerated specimens that were left untreated or were treated only by EMD, DBBM and combination of EMD and DBBM did not present predictably complete healing of the defects. All the defects where GBR was applied alone or combined with DBBM and/or EMD presented always complete healing (P<0.05). The combined use of GBR with EMD and/or DBBM did not offer any significant advantage above GBR alone in terms of healing of the length and the width of the defect. However, the vertical dimension of the defect was significantly higher (P<0.05) in the GBR-treated specimens of Groups C and D. The histological analysis supported these findings. Conclusion: The predictability of bone formation in critical-size defects depends mainly on the presence or absence of barrier membranes (GBR). The combined use with deproteinized bovine bone mineral and/or enamel matrix proteins did not significantly enhance the potential for complete healing provided by the GBR procedure.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154339
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.authorLang, NPen_US
dc.contributor.authorKaroussis, IKen_US
dc.contributor.authorBosshardt, Den_US
dc.contributor.authorTonetti, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorKostopoulos, Len_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T08:24:41Z-
dc.date.available2012-08-08T08:24:41Z-
dc.date.issued2004en_US
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2004, v. 15 n. 1, p. 101-111en_US
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154339-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To evaluate the effect of guided bone regeneration (GBR) in combination with or without deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and/or an enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on the healing of critical-size calvarial defects. Material and methods: Forty rats were used. In all animals, a standardized critical-size calvarial defect was created surgically. The animals were randomly allocated into 4 groups of 10 animals each. Group A: One calvarial defect was left untreated, while the galeal and the cerebral aspect of the contralateral defect were covered with a bioresorbable membrane (GBR). Group B: One calvarial defect was filled with EMD, while the contralateral defect was treated with GBR and EMD. Group C: One defect was filled with DBBM, while the contralateral defect was treated with combination of GBR and DBBM. Group D: One defect was filled with DBBM combined with EMD, while the contralateral defect was treated with combination of GBR, DBBM and EMD. The healing period was 4 months. Five specimens from each group were macerated and the length, the width and the vertical dimension (thickness) of the remaining defect were evaluated by a stereomicroscope. The remaining specimens in each group were analyzed histologically. Results: The defects of the macerated specimens that were left untreated or were treated only by EMD, DBBM and combination of EMD and DBBM did not present predictably complete healing of the defects. All the defects where GBR was applied alone or combined with DBBM and/or EMD presented always complete healing (P<0.05). The combined use of GBR with EMD and/or DBBM did not offer any significant advantage above GBR alone in terms of healing of the length and the width of the defect. However, the vertical dimension of the defect was significantly higher (P<0.05) in the GBR-treated specimens of Groups C and D. The histological analysis supported these findings. Conclusion: The predictability of bone formation in critical-size defects depends mainly on the presence or absence of barrier membranes (GBR). The combined use with deproteinized bovine bone mineral and/or enamel matrix proteins did not significantly enhance the potential for complete healing provided by the GBR procedure.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.meshBiocompatible Materialsen_US
dc.subject.meshBone Matrix - Transplantationen_US
dc.subject.meshBone Regenerationen_US
dc.subject.meshBone Substitutesen_US
dc.subject.meshBone Transplantation - Methodsen_US
dc.subject.meshCattleen_US
dc.subject.meshCollagenen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Enamel Proteinsen_US
dc.subject.meshGuided Tissue Regeneration - Methodsen_US
dc.subject.meshMaleen_US
dc.subject.meshMembranes, Artificialen_US
dc.subject.meshMineralsen_US
dc.subject.meshRandom Allocationen_US
dc.subject.meshRatsen_US
dc.subject.meshRats, Wistaren_US
dc.subject.meshReproducibility Of Resultsen_US
dc.subject.meshSkull - Surgeryen_US
dc.subject.meshStatistics, Nonparametricen_US
dc.titleEffect of GBR in combination with deproteinized bovine bone mineral and/ or enamel matrix proteins on the healing of critical-size defectsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailLang, NP:nplang@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityLang, NP=rp00031en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.00986.xen_US
dc.identifier.pmid14731183-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-2142712500en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-2142712500&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume15en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.spage101en_US
dc.identifier.epage111en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000188305800013-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridDonos, N=7004314492en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLang, NP=7201577367en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridKaroussis, IK=6603174242en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBosshardt, D=6603806230en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTonetti, M=35602248900en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridKostopoulos, L=6603960784en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats