Browse

Periodontal Repair in Dogs: A Bioabsorbable Calcium Carbonate Coral Implant Enhances Space Provision for Alveolar Bone Regeneration in Conjunction with Guided Tissue Regeneration

Cited 0 time in Web of Science Cited 0 time in Scopus
Authors
Wikesjö, Ulf M.E.; Lim, Won Hee; Razi, Saghi S.; Sigurdsson, Thorarinn J.; Lee, Michael B.; Tatakis, Dimitris N.; Hardwick, W. Ross
Issue Date
2003-07
Publisher
Journal of Periodontology
Citation
J Periodontol 2003;74:957-964
Keywords
Alveolar bonebone regenerationcalcium carbonatedental cementumguided bone regenerationmembrances, bioabsorbable
Abstract
Background: collapse or compression of a barrier device into a periodontal defect or onto the root surface compromises outcomes following guided tissue regeneration (GTR). Bone biomaterials have been suggested to support regeneration of alveolar bone and to improve space provision with GTR devices. The objective of this study was to evaluate space provision, alveolar bone, and cementum regeneration following use of a bioabsorbable, calcium carbonate biomaterial in conjunction with GTR.

Methods: Routine, critical size, 5 to 6 mm, supraalveolar, periodontal defects were created in 5 young adult beagle dogs. Alternate jaw quadrants in consecutive animals received GTR and the coral biomaterial (cGTR) or GTR alone. The animals were euthanized 4 weeks postsurgery and tissue blocks processed for histometric analysis.

Results: The coral implant particles were surrounded by newly-formed bone or immersed in connective tissue and appeared to resorb and be replaced by bone. There was limited, if any, appreciable cementum regeneration. Space provision was enhanced in cGTR compared to GTR sites (6.1 ± 1.6 versus 2.4 ± 0.8 mm2; P <0.05). Bone regeneration (height) was significantly increased in cGTR compared to GTR sites averaging 1.9 ± 0.6 and 1.2 ± 0.6 mm, respectively (P<0.05). Bone regeneration (area) was 2-fold greater in cGTR sites compared to the GTR control (3.3 ± 1.8 versus 1.4 ± 0.5 mm2), however the difference was not statistically significant (P >0.05).

Conclusions: The coral implant significantly enhanced space provision for GTR while alveolar bone formation appeared to be enhanced by its use. Increased healing intervals are needed to fully understand the biologic value of the coral implant a s an adjunct to GTR.
ISSN
0022-3492
Language
English
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/10371/73599
Files in This Item:
Appears in Collections:
College of Dentistry/School of Dentistry (치과대학/치의학대학원)Dept. of Dentistry (치의학과)Journal Papers (저널논문_치의학과)
  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse