在窄牙槽脊的完整和受损部位进行无辅助牙槽龛愈合后,比较牙槽脊保留与引导骨再生的体内实验研究。

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Hae Jee Shin, Jin-Young Park, Hsu Kuo Tien, Franz-Josef Strauss, Jae-Kook Cha, Jung-Seok Lee
{"title":"在窄牙槽脊的完整和受损部位进行无辅助牙槽龛愈合后,比较牙槽脊保留与引导骨再生的体内实验研究。","authors":"Hae Jee Shin, Jin-Young Park, Hsu Kuo Tien, Franz-Josef Strauss, Jae-Kook Cha, Jung-Seok Lee","doi":"10.1002/JPER.24-0125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare bone regeneration and dimensional alteration of alveolar ridge at intact and damaged extraction sockets after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and implant placement versus unassisted socket healing followed by guided bone regeneration (GBR) with simultaneous implant placement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 6 beagle dogs, 3 types of extraction sockets in the mandible were created: (1) intact sockets, (2) 1-wall defect sockets and (3) 2-wall defect sockets. The sockets were allocated to undergo either (1) ARP and implant placement 8 weeks later (ARP group) or (2) GBR with simultaneous implant placement after 8 weeks of unassisted socket healing (GBR group). After an additional healing period of 8 weeks, bone regeneration and dimensional changes were evaluated radiographically and histologically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GBR showed superior bone formation and greater bone gains compared to ARP, regardless of the initial extraction-socket configuration. Although ARP maintained the preexisting alveolar ridge dimensions, peri-implant bone defects were still detected at 8 weeks of follow-up. Histomorphometric analyses confirmed that GBR increased dimensions of the alveolar ridge compared to baseline, and the augmentation and bone regeneration were greater with GBR than with ARP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Early implant placement with ARP can mitigate alveolar ridge changes in the narrow alveolar ridge. However, early implant placement with simultaneous GBR creates the conditions for enhanced bone regeneration around the implant and greater ridge augmentation compared to ARP, irrespective of the extraction-socket configuration.</p>","PeriodicalId":16716,"journal":{"name":"Journal of periodontology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In vivo experimental study comparing alveolar ridge preservation versus guided bone regeneration after unassisted socket healing at intact and damaged sites in narrow alveolar ridges.\",\"authors\":\"Hae Jee Shin, Jin-Young Park, Hsu Kuo Tien, Franz-Josef Strauss, Jae-Kook Cha, Jung-Seok Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/JPER.24-0125\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare bone regeneration and dimensional alteration of alveolar ridge at intact and damaged extraction sockets after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and implant placement versus unassisted socket healing followed by guided bone regeneration (GBR) with simultaneous implant placement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 6 beagle dogs, 3 types of extraction sockets in the mandible were created: (1) intact sockets, (2) 1-wall defect sockets and (3) 2-wall defect sockets. The sockets were allocated to undergo either (1) ARP and implant placement 8 weeks later (ARP group) or (2) GBR with simultaneous implant placement after 8 weeks of unassisted socket healing (GBR group). After an additional healing period of 8 weeks, bone regeneration and dimensional changes were evaluated radiographically and histologically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GBR showed superior bone formation and greater bone gains compared to ARP, regardless of the initial extraction-socket configuration. Although ARP maintained the preexisting alveolar ridge dimensions, peri-implant bone defects were still detected at 8 weeks of follow-up. Histomorphometric analyses confirmed that GBR increased dimensions of the alveolar ridge compared to baseline, and the augmentation and bone regeneration were greater with GBR than with ARP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Early implant placement with ARP can mitigate alveolar ridge changes in the narrow alveolar ridge. However, early implant placement with simultaneous GBR creates the conditions for enhanced bone regeneration around the implant and greater ridge augmentation compared to ARP, irrespective of the extraction-socket configuration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16716,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of periodontology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of periodontology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.24-0125\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of periodontology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.24-0125","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目的:比较牙槽嵴保留(ARP)和种植体植入后,完整拔牙窝和受损拔牙窝的骨再生和牙槽嵴的尺寸变化,以及无辅助拔牙窝愈合后引导骨再生(GBR)并同时植入种植体的情况:在 6 只小猎犬的下颌骨中创建了 3 种类型的拔牙套槽:(1) 完整套槽;(2) 1 壁缺损套槽;(3) 2 壁缺损套槽。这些基台被分配为:(1) ARP,8 周后植入种植体(ARP 组);(2) GBR,8 周无辅助基台愈合后同时植入种植体(GBR 组)。再经过 8 周的愈合期后,对骨再生和尺寸变化进行影像学和组织学评估:结果:与 ARP 相比,GBR 显示出更优越的骨形成和更大的骨增量,与最初的拔牙窝结构无关。虽然ARP保持了原有的牙槽嵴尺寸,但在8周的随访中仍发现种植体周围有骨缺损。组织形态计量学分析证实,与基线相比,GBR增加了牙槽嵴的尺寸,而且GBR的增量和骨再生效果比ARP更好:结论:在牙槽嵴狭窄的情况下,早期植入种植体并同时植入 ARP 可以缓解牙槽嵴的变化。然而,与 ARP 相比,早期种植体植入同时进行 GBR 可为增强种植体周围的骨再生和牙槽嵴增生创造条件,而与拔牙窝的结构无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
In vivo experimental study comparing alveolar ridge preservation versus guided bone regeneration after unassisted socket healing at intact and damaged sites in narrow alveolar ridges.

Background: To compare bone regeneration and dimensional alteration of alveolar ridge at intact and damaged extraction sockets after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and implant placement versus unassisted socket healing followed by guided bone regeneration (GBR) with simultaneous implant placement.

Methods: In 6 beagle dogs, 3 types of extraction sockets in the mandible were created: (1) intact sockets, (2) 1-wall defect sockets and (3) 2-wall defect sockets. The sockets were allocated to undergo either (1) ARP and implant placement 8 weeks later (ARP group) or (2) GBR with simultaneous implant placement after 8 weeks of unassisted socket healing (GBR group). After an additional healing period of 8 weeks, bone regeneration and dimensional changes were evaluated radiographically and histologically.

Results: GBR showed superior bone formation and greater bone gains compared to ARP, regardless of the initial extraction-socket configuration. Although ARP maintained the preexisting alveolar ridge dimensions, peri-implant bone defects were still detected at 8 weeks of follow-up. Histomorphometric analyses confirmed that GBR increased dimensions of the alveolar ridge compared to baseline, and the augmentation and bone regeneration were greater with GBR than with ARP.

Conclusion: Early implant placement with ARP can mitigate alveolar ridge changes in the narrow alveolar ridge. However, early implant placement with simultaneous GBR creates the conditions for enhanced bone regeneration around the implant and greater ridge augmentation compared to ARP, irrespective of the extraction-socket configuration.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of periodontology
Journal of periodontology 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
7.00%
发文量
290
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Periodontology publishes articles relevant to the science and practice of periodontics and related areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信