Periodontal and Endodontic Regeneration

Bashutski, Jill D.; Wang, Hom Lay

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2008.11.023

Cited by 139 publications

(143 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

141

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bone grafts are widely used in surgical procedures in Dentistry, particularly in Periodontology [1][2][3][4][5], Implantology [2,6,7], Endodontics [3,5,[8][9][10] and Oral Surgery [11,12]. Although autogeneous bone continues to be the "gold standard" in bone substitution [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20], its limited availability and the need for a second surgical site and procedure drove the quest to other alternatives, like allografts (from cadavers), xenografts (from animals) and numerous synthetic materials [15-17, 20, 21], all having merits and limitations [13,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of a xenogeneic and an alloplastic material used in dental implants in terms of physico-chemical characteristics and in vivo inflammatory response

Figueiredo

Coimbra

Cabrita

et al. 2013

Materials Science and Engineering: C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two commercial bone grafts used in dentistry (Osteobiol Gen-Os®, a xenograft of porcine origin, and Bonelike®, a hydroxyapatite based synthetic material), in the form of granules, were characterized and evaluated in vivo regarding the intensity of the tissue inflammatory response. These biomaterials were characterized in terms of morphology, particle size distribution, porosity and pore size, specific surface are and density. The chemical composition and structure of the materials were accessed by Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) and X-ray Diffraction (XRD). The graft materials were implanted in the gluteus maximus muscles of Wistar rats and the inflammatory response evaluated through histological analysis, after one week of implantation.The results showed that the two grafts have quite different characteristics in practically all the evaluated properties. While Osteobiol® exhibits a structure and composition similar to the natural bone, Bonelike® is constituted by a main crystalline phase of hydroxyapatite and two secondary phases of -and -tricalcium phosphate. Osteobiol® granules, besides being larger, are irregular, and exhibit sharp-edged tips, while those of Bonelike® are approximately cylindrical, with round contours, and more uniform in size. The in vivo response evaluated from the inflammatory infiltrates revealed that although both implants did not cause severe inflammation, Bonelike® granules elicit a consistently more intense inflammatory reaction than that triggered by the granules of Osteobiol®, particularly in terms of collagen production and formation of fibrous capsule. This reaction was partly explained in terms of the characteristics evaluated for the granules of this material.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of a xenogeneic and an alloplastic material used in dental implants in terms of physico-chemical characteristics and in vivo inflammatory response

Figueiredo

Coimbra

Cabrita

et al. 2013

Materials Science and Engineering: C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although, the differences observed by clinical variables were not statistically significant, the tendency to more adverse effects in defects regenerated with xerographic and synthetic materials has been reported by previous studies in the form of prominent inflammatory cells than autograph and empty control defects [2,29]. This can be attributed to the immune body response to trauma and presence of foreign body (BRMs) in the healing bone defects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…This can be attributed to the immune body response to trauma and presence of foreign body (BRMs) in the healing bone defects. Autografts have less adverse effects because they are reported to be more compatible than other BRMs [2,29], while the slow rate of Bio Oss resorption [1] may be the reason for prolonged adverse effect in the group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Regenerative Materials on Biomarkers, Clinical and Radiological Features of Healing Defects Treated by Guided Bone Regeneration

Zhuang¹,

Machibya²,

Guo³

et al. 2018

Br Biomed Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[44][45][46] Periodontal sağlık durumu, İs-keletsel kemik yoğunluğu ve implant başarısı arasında güçlü bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir. 47,48 İnsan ve hayvan çalışmaları yetersiz D vitamini seviyesinin oral kanserlerle ilişkisi olduğu gös-terilmiştir. 49 Oral squamoz hücreli karsinoma malignansilerinde 25OHD nin antineoplastik etkisi de görülmüştür.…”

Section: Vi̇tami̇ni̇ Ve Ağiz Sağliğiunclassified