Bioactive ceramics for periodontal treatment: Comparative studies in the patus monkey

Wilson, June; Low, Samuel B.

doi:10.1002/jab.770030208

Cited by 243 publications

(176 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

168

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…15 At this instance, the regenerative healing of periodontal lesions after application of bioactive glass was histologically examined in animals by Wilson and Low, Karatzas et al reported the new cementum formation with collagen fiber insertion, and no long junctional epithelium at the bioactive glass site. 16,17 In contrary to the above studies, Nevins ML, et al evaluated Bioglass histologically in five human periodontal defects, and confirmed the new formation of root cementum and connective tissue attachment at only one tooth. 18 There are currently limited studies available comparing the treatment outcomes of bioactive glass in the treatment of intrabony defects in aggressive periodontitis.…”

Section: Karatzas S Zavrasmentioning

confidence: 94%

Clinical Evaluation of Intrabony Defects in Localized Aggressive Periodontitis Patients with and without Bioglass- An In-vivo Study

Satyanarayana

Anuradha

Gadicherla

et al. 2012

Kathmandu Univ. Med. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Aggressive periodontitis is a specific type of periodontitis with clearly identifiable clinical characteristics such as “rapid attachment loss, bone destruction” and “familial aggregation”. Regeneration of mineralized tissues affected by aggressive periodontitis comprises a major scientific and clinical challenge. In recent years some evidence has been provided that bioactive glass is also capable of supporting the regenerative healing of periodontal lesions. Objective The aim of this clinical and radiological prospective study was to evaluate the efficacy of bioactive glass in the treatment of intra-bony defects in patients with localized aggressive periodontitis. Methods Twelve localized aggressive periodontitis patients with bilaterally located three-walled intra-bony defect depth ? 2 mm, preoperative probing depths ? 5 mm were randomly treated either with the bioactive glass or without the bioactive glass. The clinical parameters plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, gingival recession, clinical attachment level, and mobility were recorded prior to surgery as well as 12 months after surgery. Intraoral radiographs were digitized to evaluate the bone defect depth at baseline and 12 months after the surgery. Results After 12 months, a reduction in probing depth of 3.92 + 0.313 mm (P <0.001) and a gain in clinical attachment level of 4.42+0358mm (P <0.001) were registered in the test group. In the control group, a reduction in probing depth of 2.5 +0.230mm (P <0.001) and a gain in clinical attachment level of 2.58 + 0.149 mm (P<0.001) was recorded. Radiographically, the defects were found to be filled by 2.587 + 0.218 mm (P <0.001) in the test group and by 0.1792 + 0.031mm (P <0.001) in the control group. Changes in gingival recession showed no significant differences. . Conclusion Highly significant improvements in the parameters Probing depth, Clinical attachment level, and Bone defect depth were recorded after 12 months, with regenerative material. KATHMANDU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL JOURNAL VOL.10 | NO. 1 | ISSUE 37 | JAN - MAR 2012 | 11-15 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/kumj.v10i1.6906

show abstract

Section: Karatzas S Zavrasmentioning

confidence: 94%

Clinical Evaluation of Intrabony Defects in Localized Aggressive Periodontitis Patients with and without Bioglass- An In-vivo Study

Satyanarayana

Anuradha

Gadicherla

et al. 2012

Kathmandu Univ. Med. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Slow release of soluble ions from the material stimulates cell division and production of growth factors and ECM proteins. Mineralization of the matrix follows and the mature osteoblast phenotype, encased in a collagen -HCA matrix (osteocytes), is the final product both in vitro and in vivo (Wilson & Low 1992;Hench et al 2000;Xynos et al 2000aXynos et al ,b, 2001Bielby et al 2004Bielby et al , 2005Gough et al 2004;Christodoulou et al 2005a,b).…”

Section: Third-generation Biomaterials: Cell-and Gene-activating Matementioning

confidence: 99%

Twenty-first century challenges for biomaterials

Hench

Thompson

2010

J. R. Soc. Interface.

369

237

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the 1960s and 1970s, a first generation of materials was specially developed for use inside the human body. These developments became the basis for the field of biomaterials. The devices made from biomaterials are called prostheses. Professor Bill Bonfield was one of the first to recognize the importance of understanding the mechanical properties of tissues, especially bone, in order to achieve reliable skeletal prostheses. His research was one of the pioneering efforts to understand the interaction of biomaterials with living tissues. The goal of all early biomaterials was to 'achieve a suitable combination of physical properties to match those of the replaced tissue with a minimal toxic response in the host'. By 1980, there were more than 50 implanted prostheses in clinical use made from 40 different materials. At that time, more than three million prosthetic parts were being implanted in patients worldwide each year. A common feature of most of the 40 materials was biological 'inertness'. Almost all materials used in the body were single-phase materials. Most implant materials were adaptations of already existing commercial materials with higher levels of purity to eliminate release of toxic by-products and minimize corrosion. This article is a tribute to Bill Bonfield's pioneering efforts in the field of bone biomechanics, biomaterials and interdisciplinary research. It is also a brief summary of the evolution of bioactive materials and the opportunities for tailoring the composition, texture and surface chemistry of them to meet five important challenges for the twenty-first century.

show abstract

“…Materials Science and Engineering C 33 (2013) [2757][2758][2759][2760][2761][2762][2763][2764][2765] As an alternative, bioactive glasses are being used as a bone healing strategy [10][11][12]. The currently FDA approved glass for these applications is known as Perioglass™ (Mo-Sci, Rolla, MO) and is based on the chemistry of Hench's Bioglass™ (45S5, 45 wt.% SiO 2 , 24.5 wt.% Na 2 O, 24.5 wt.% CaO, 6 wt.% P 2 O 5 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combinatorial effect of Si4+, Ca2+, and Mg2+ released from bioactive glasses on osteoblast osteocalcin expression and biomineralization

Tousi¹,

Velten

Bishop

et al. 2013

Materials Science and Engineering: C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Bioactive ceramics for periodontal treatment: Comparative studies in the patus monkey

Cited by 243 publications

References 8 publications

Clinical Evaluation of Intrabony Defects in Localized Aggressive Periodontitis Patients with and without Bioglass- An In-vivo Study

Clinical Evaluation of Intrabony Defects in Localized Aggressive Periodontitis Patients with and without Bioglass- An In-vivo Study

Twenty-first century challenges for biomaterials

Combinatorial effect of Si4+, Ca2+, and Mg2+ released from bioactive glasses on osteoblast osteocalcin expression and biomineralization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About