兔骨截骨术的消融和扩张方案。

IF 2.5 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Kazuhisa Kuwano, Luigi Canullo, Daniele Botticelli, Samuel Porfirio Xavier, Erick Ricardo Silva, Kaoru Kusano, Shunsuke Baba
{"title":"兔骨截骨术的消融和扩张方案。","authors":"Kazuhisa Kuwano, Luigi Canullo, Daniele Botticelli, Samuel Porfirio Xavier, Erick Ricardo Silva, Kaoru Kusano, Shunsuke Baba","doi":"10.3390/dj13030118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Cortical and marrow bone layer have different histomorphometric features. The traditional implant insertion technique provides for fixture stabilization through the cortical area. However, this approach has been found to result in an overstress of this bone layer, which may lead to resorption. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate bone healing by applying two different implant site preparation protocols across various bone densities. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> One implant was placed in each femur and tibia of the rabbits (four implants per animal), using two distinct site preparation methods: drilling alone or drilling followed by osteotomes (funnel technique). Three regions around the implant were evaluated: cervical, marrow, and apical. The study included 12 rabbits, divided into two groups of 6 animals each, which were euthanized at 3 and 6 weeks, respectively (<i>n</i> = 6 per group). <b>Results:</b> In the cervical region of both femur and tibia, no marginal bone resorption could be detected. Similar BIC% (bone-to-implant contact percentages) were observed for funnel and drill sites after 3 weeks and 6 weeks of healing. Differences, though not statistically significant, ranged between 2.8% and 4.7%. However, higher BIC% values were observed in the femora compared to the tibia in both periods. <b>Conclusions:</b> No marginal bone loss was observed in both techniques. No statistically significant differences in bone resorption or bone-to-implant contact around the implant collar were observed when comparing two implant site preparation protocols across various bone densities. The use of osteotome did not influence the healing in the marrow region.</p>","PeriodicalId":11269,"journal":{"name":"Dentistry Journal","volume":"13 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11941037/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ablative and Expansive Protocols for Bone Osteotomy in Rabbits.\",\"authors\":\"Kazuhisa Kuwano, Luigi Canullo, Daniele Botticelli, Samuel Porfirio Xavier, Erick Ricardo Silva, Kaoru Kusano, Shunsuke Baba\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/dj13030118\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Cortical and marrow bone layer have different histomorphometric features. The traditional implant insertion technique provides for fixture stabilization through the cortical area. However, this approach has been found to result in an overstress of this bone layer, which may lead to resorption. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate bone healing by applying two different implant site preparation protocols across various bone densities. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> One implant was placed in each femur and tibia of the rabbits (four implants per animal), using two distinct site preparation methods: drilling alone or drilling followed by osteotomes (funnel technique). Three regions around the implant were evaluated: cervical, marrow, and apical. The study included 12 rabbits, divided into two groups of 6 animals each, which were euthanized at 3 and 6 weeks, respectively (<i>n</i> = 6 per group). <b>Results:</b> In the cervical region of both femur and tibia, no marginal bone resorption could be detected. Similar BIC% (bone-to-implant contact percentages) were observed for funnel and drill sites after 3 weeks and 6 weeks of healing. Differences, though not statistically significant, ranged between 2.8% and 4.7%. However, higher BIC% values were observed in the femora compared to the tibia in both periods. <b>Conclusions:</b> No marginal bone loss was observed in both techniques. No statistically significant differences in bone resorption or bone-to-implant contact around the implant collar were observed when comparing two implant site preparation protocols across various bone densities. The use of osteotome did not influence the healing in the marrow region.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dentistry Journal\",\"volume\":\"13 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11941037/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dentistry Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13030118\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dentistry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13030118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:皮质层和骨髓层具有不同的组织形态学特征。传统的植入技术通过皮质区提供固定装置的稳定。然而,这种方法已被发现会导致该骨层的过度应力,这可能导致再吸收。因此,本研究的目的是通过在不同骨密度下应用两种不同的种植体位置准备方案来评估骨愈合。材料和方法:在兔的股骨和胫骨各放置一个植入物(每只动物4个植入物),采用两种不同的部位准备方法:单独钻孔或钻孔后进行截骨术(漏斗技术)。评估种植体周围的三个区域:颈椎、骨髓和根尖。实验选用家兔12只,分为两组,每组6只,分别于第3周和第6周实施安乐死(每组n = 6)。结果:股骨、胫骨颈椎区均未见边缘骨吸收。在愈合3周和6周后,漏斗和钻孔部位观察到相似的BIC%(骨与种植体接触百分比)。差异虽然没有统计学意义,但在2.8%到4.7%之间。然而,在这两个时期,股骨的BIC%值均高于胫骨。结论:两种方法均未观察到边缘骨丢失。在比较两种不同骨密度的种植体位置准备方案时,在骨吸收或种植体环周围骨与种植体接触方面没有统计学上的显著差异。取骨术不影响骨髓区愈合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ablative and Expansive Protocols for Bone Osteotomy in Rabbits.

Background: Cortical and marrow bone layer have different histomorphometric features. The traditional implant insertion technique provides for fixture stabilization through the cortical area. However, this approach has been found to result in an overstress of this bone layer, which may lead to resorption. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate bone healing by applying two different implant site preparation protocols across various bone densities. Materials and Methods: One implant was placed in each femur and tibia of the rabbits (four implants per animal), using two distinct site preparation methods: drilling alone or drilling followed by osteotomes (funnel technique). Three regions around the implant were evaluated: cervical, marrow, and apical. The study included 12 rabbits, divided into two groups of 6 animals each, which were euthanized at 3 and 6 weeks, respectively (n = 6 per group). Results: In the cervical region of both femur and tibia, no marginal bone resorption could be detected. Similar BIC% (bone-to-implant contact percentages) were observed for funnel and drill sites after 3 weeks and 6 weeks of healing. Differences, though not statistically significant, ranged between 2.8% and 4.7%. However, higher BIC% values were observed in the femora compared to the tibia in both periods. Conclusions: No marginal bone loss was observed in both techniques. No statistically significant differences in bone resorption or bone-to-implant contact around the implant collar were observed when comparing two implant site preparation protocols across various bone densities. The use of osteotome did not influence the healing in the marrow region.

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
Dentistry Journal
Dentistry Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
213
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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