File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison of two resorbable membrane systems in bone regeneration after removal of wisdom teeth: A randomized-controlled clinical pilot study

TitleComparison of two resorbable membrane systems in bone regeneration after removal of wisdom teeth: A randomized-controlled clinical pilot study
Authors
KeywordsBone augmentation
Guided tissue regeneration
Resorbable membrane
Third molars
Issue Date2009
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
Citation
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2009, v. 20 n. 10, p. 1084-1091 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: To compare the performance and safety of Inion GTR TM Biodegradable Membrane System and Geistlich resorbable bilayer Bio-Gide ® membrane in human bone regeneration. Material and methods: In a multicenter, split blind, comparative, randomized, prospective, pilot study 15 patients have been randomized at surgery whether to be treated either with Inion GTR TM Biodegradable Membrane System on one and Geistlich resorbable bilayer Bio-Gide ® membrane on the other side or vice versa after surgical removal of both fully impacted wisdom teeth. During the follow-up visits at week 1, 2 and 6 and at months 3 and 6 the general state, the wound, eventual adverse events and the medication of the patients were assessed. Computed Tomography (CT) scans were performed immediately and 3 months after the surgery, before biopsy collection. Semi-quantitative histological evaluation and histomorphometric analyses were performed according to the ISO 10993-6 standard. New bone formation and membrane integration were evaluated by CT scan measurements. Tissue healing was evaluated clinically and by photographs between the time on teeth extraction and during follow ups. Results: Five patients were smokers, none drank alcohol. Mild adverse events like wound infection, haematoma or late swelling of the gums occurred in three patients. The trephine bur harvest of bone biopsies under local anaesthesia was uneventful. Whereas specimens from the sites treated with the Inion membrane yielded 17.0% (SD 24%), the Bio-Gide membrane sites yielded 13.5% (SD 15%) of bone tissue density. In sites treated with the Inion membrane, 9.5% of old bone density and 7.5% of newly formed bone could be found, whereas the Bio-Gide ® membrane sites showed 3.8% of old bone density and 9.8% of newly formed bone. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to the two variables. The osteoid rim was more extended with the Bio-Gide ® (6.6 mm) than with the Inion membrane (5.1 mm) but the difference between the two treatments did not reach statistical significance. Highly significant reductions in the area of the defect with both membranes were detected with significant increases in CT density at the immediate inferio-buccal adjacent bone and in the surgical defect area with both membranes. However, there was neither significant change in CT density in the immediate inferior-lingual adjacent bone of the two membranes, nor significant difference between the membranes on any of the four measurements (area of defect: P=0.1354; CT density immediate inferio-buccal adjacent bone: P=0.7615; CT density surgical defect area: P=0.1876; CT density immediate inferio-lingual adjacent bone: P=0.4212). Conclusion: The overall clinical outcome was satisfying and the majority of the patients showed an uneventful healing phase. Both membranes presented similar capacities regarding their barrier function and were associated with analogous bone regeneration. No statistically valid evidence about the superiority of one particular membrane was obtained. For the patient the only difference is that one product is animal derived and the other synthetic. © 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/90638
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.464
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.427
ISI Accession Number ID
Funding AgencyGrant Number
INION OY, Laakarinkatu 2R304 - 002
Funding Information:

This study (INION Reference number: R304 - 002) was sponsored by INION OY, Laakarinkatu 2, FIN-33520 Tampere, Finland. We thank Dr Antoine Alves (Lyon) for doing the histology.

References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorZwahlen, RAen_HK
dc.contributor.authorCheung, LKen_HK
dc.contributor.authorZheng, LWen_HK
dc.contributor.authorChow, RLKen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLi, Ten_HK
dc.contributor.authorSchuknecht, Ben_HK
dc.contributor.authorGrätz, KWen_HK
dc.contributor.authorWeber, FEen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-17T10:06:04Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-17T10:06:04Z-
dc.date.issued2009en_HK
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2009, v. 20 n. 10, p. 1084-1091en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/90638-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To compare the performance and safety of Inion GTR TM Biodegradable Membrane System and Geistlich resorbable bilayer Bio-Gide ® membrane in human bone regeneration. Material and methods: In a multicenter, split blind, comparative, randomized, prospective, pilot study 15 patients have been randomized at surgery whether to be treated either with Inion GTR TM Biodegradable Membrane System on one and Geistlich resorbable bilayer Bio-Gide ® membrane on the other side or vice versa after surgical removal of both fully impacted wisdom teeth. During the follow-up visits at week 1, 2 and 6 and at months 3 and 6 the general state, the wound, eventual adverse events and the medication of the patients were assessed. Computed Tomography (CT) scans were performed immediately and 3 months after the surgery, before biopsy collection. Semi-quantitative histological evaluation and histomorphometric analyses were performed according to the ISO 10993-6 standard. New bone formation and membrane integration were evaluated by CT scan measurements. Tissue healing was evaluated clinically and by photographs between the time on teeth extraction and during follow ups. Results: Five patients were smokers, none drank alcohol. Mild adverse events like wound infection, haematoma or late swelling of the gums occurred in three patients. The trephine bur harvest of bone biopsies under local anaesthesia was uneventful. Whereas specimens from the sites treated with the Inion membrane yielded 17.0% (SD 24%), the Bio-Gide membrane sites yielded 13.5% (SD 15%) of bone tissue density. In sites treated with the Inion membrane, 9.5% of old bone density and 7.5% of newly formed bone could be found, whereas the Bio-Gide ® membrane sites showed 3.8% of old bone density and 9.8% of newly formed bone. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to the two variables. The osteoid rim was more extended with the Bio-Gide ® (6.6 mm) than with the Inion membrane (5.1 mm) but the difference between the two treatments did not reach statistical significance. Highly significant reductions in the area of the defect with both membranes were detected with significant increases in CT density at the immediate inferio-buccal adjacent bone and in the surgical defect area with both membranes. However, there was neither significant change in CT density in the immediate inferior-lingual adjacent bone of the two membranes, nor significant difference between the membranes on any of the four measurements (area of defect: P=0.1354; CT density immediate inferio-buccal adjacent bone: P=0.7615; CT density surgical defect area: P=0.1876; CT density immediate inferio-lingual adjacent bone: P=0.4212). Conclusion: The overall clinical outcome was satisfying and the majority of the patients showed an uneventful healing phase. Both membranes presented similar capacities regarding their barrier function and were associated with analogous bone regeneration. No statistically valid evidence about the superiority of one particular membrane was obtained. For the patient the only difference is that one product is animal derived and the other synthetic. © 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLRen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Researchen_HK
dc.rightsThe definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com-
dc.subjectBone augmentationen_HK
dc.subjectGuided tissue regenerationen_HK
dc.subjectResorbable membraneen_HK
dc.subjectThird molarsen_HK
dc.subject.meshAlveolar Process - drug effects - physiology-
dc.subject.meshBiocompatible Materials - therapeutic use-
dc.subject.meshBone Regeneration - drug effects - physiology-
dc.subject.meshGuided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods-
dc.subject.meshMembranes, Artificial-
dc.titleComparison of two resorbable membrane systems in bone regeneration after removal of wisdom teeth: A randomized-controlled clinical pilot studyen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0905-7161&volume=20&issue=10&spage=1084&epage=1091&date=2009&atitle=Comparison+of+two+resorbable+membrane+systems+in+bone+regeneration+after+removal+of+wisdom+teeth:+a+randomized-controlled+clinical+pilot+study-
dc.identifier.emailZwahlen, RA:zwahlen@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailCheung, LK:lkcheung@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailZheng, LW:lwzheng@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityZwahlen, RA=rp00055en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityCheung, LK=rp00013en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityZheng, LW=rp01411en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01751.xen_HK
dc.identifier.pmid19751357en_HK
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-70249129752en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros169261-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-70249129752&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume20en_HK
dc.identifier.issue10en_HK
dc.identifier.spage1084en_HK
dc.identifier.epage1091en_HK
dc.identifier.eissn1600-0501-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000269674300004-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridZwahlen, RA=7004217269en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCheung, LK=7102302747en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridZheng, LW=11241247300en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChow, RLK=14621379900en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLi, T=24352391500en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSchuknecht, B=7004004076en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridGrätz, KW=7005383755en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWeber, FE=7201702808en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike5786641-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats