[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Introduction: Vertical osteogenic alveolar distraction (VOAD) allows for the augmentation of the alveolar ridge for the placement of dental implants in atrophic alveolar ridges. The goal of this paper is to assess long-term peri-implant bone resorption in implants placed on bones subjected to VOAD, comparing it with a group of patients who had implants placed directly on the alveolar bone without previous bone regeneration. Material and Methods: We conducted a follow-up study on 32 patients who were divided into two groups: The Distraction Group (14 patients), and the Distraction-Free Group (18 patients), who received a total of 100 implants. Peri-implant bone loss was measured by means of panoramic X-rays, at the time of loading and one year later, and in 35 implants of each group after 3 years of functional loading. Results: The peri-implant bone resorption (PBR) average observed in the Distraction Group at the time of prosthetic placement is higher (0.50±0.09 mm) than in the Distraction-Free Group (0.25±0.06 mm), showing statistically significant results (p=0.047). PBR levels 1 year after loading were the same for both groups (0.66 mm). At 3 years, they were higher in the Distraction Group (1.03 ± 0.22 mm vs. 0.68 ± 0.08 mm).
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Healing of the extraction socket after tooth removal involves retention of the blood clot followed by a sequence of events that lead to changes in the alveolar process in a three dimensional fashion. This normal healing event results in a minimal loss of vertical height (around 1 mm), but a substantial loss of width in the buccal-lingual plane (4-6 mm). During the first three months following extraction that loss has been shown to be significant and may result in both a hard tissue and soft tissue deformity affecting the ability to restore the site with acceptable esthetics. Procedures that reduce the resorptive process have been shown to be predictable and potentially capable of eliminating secondary surgery for site preparation when implant therapy is planned. The key element is prior planning by the dental therapist to act at the time of extraction to prevent the collapse of the ridge due to the loss of the alveolus. Several techniques have been employed as ridge preservation procedures involving the use of bone grafts, barrier membranes and biologics to provide a better restorative outcome. This review will explore the evidence behind each technique and their efficacy in accomplishing site preparation. The literature does not identify a single technique as superior to others; however, all accepted therapeutic procedures for ridge preservation have been shown to be more effective than blood clot alone in randomized controlled studies.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Advancement of materials technology has been immense, especially in the past 30 years. Ceramics has not been new to dentistry. Porcelain crowns, silica fillers in composite resins, and glass ionomer cements have already been proved to be successful. Materials used in the replacement of tissues have come a long way from being inert, to compatible, and now regenerative. When hydroxyapatite was believed to be the best biocompatible replacement material, Larry Hench developed a material using silica (glass) as the host material, incorporated with calcium and phosphorous to fuse broken bones. This material mimics bone material and stimulates the regrowth of new bone material. Thus, due to its biocompatibility and osteogenic capacity it came to be known as "bioactive glass-bioglass." It is now encompassed, along with synthetic hydroxyapatite, in the field of biomaterials science known as "bioactive ceramics." The aim of this article is to give a bird's-eye view, of the various uses in dentistry, of this novel, miracle material which can bond, induce osteogenesis, and also regenerate bone.
Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & research. 04/2013; 4(2):78-83.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.