Limits...
The effect of overlaying titanium mesh with collagen membrane for ridge preservation.

Lim HC, Lee JS, Choi SH, Jung UW - J Periodontal Implant Sci (2015)

Bottom Line: Biopsy specimens were retrieved for histologic and histomorphometric analyses after 16 weeks.The distances between the fixture platform and the first bone-implant contact and the bone crest did not differ significantly between the TM and CM groups.Our study suggests that the additional use of a CM over TM does not offer added benefit for mucosal healing and buccal bone preservation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Periodontology, Kyung Hee University School of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of overlaying titanium mesh (TM) with an adjunctive collagen membrane (CM) for preserving the buccal bone when used in association with immediate implant placement in dogs.

Methods: Immediate implant placements were performed in the mesial sockets of the third premolars of five dogs. At one site the TM was attached to the fixture with the aid of its own stabilizers and then covered by a CM (CM group), while the contralateral site received only TM (TM group). Biopsy specimens were retrieved for histologic and histomorphometric analyses after 16 weeks.

Results: All samples exhibited pronounced buccal bone resorption, and a high rate of TM exposure was noted (in three and four cases of the five samples in each of the TM and CM groups, respectively). A dense fibrous tissue with little vascularity or cellularity had infiltrated through the pores of the TM irrespective of the presence of a CM. The distances between the fixture platform and the first bone-implant contact and the bone crest did not differ significantly between the TM and CM groups.

Conclusions: Our study suggests that the additional use of a CM over TM does not offer added benefit for mucosal healing and buccal bone preservation.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Photomicrographs of exposed sites in the TM group (A) and CM group (B), and of nonexposed sites in the TM group (C) and the CM group (D). The buccal walls were significantly resorbed in all samples, irrespective of the presence or absence of TM exposure. Hematoxylin-eosin stain; scale bars = 2 mm.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4556798&req=5

Figure 4: Photomicrographs of exposed sites in the TM group (A) and CM group (B), and of nonexposed sites in the TM group (C) and the CM group (D). The buccal walls were significantly resorbed in all samples, irrespective of the presence or absence of TM exposure. Hematoxylin-eosin stain; scale bars = 2 mm.

Mentions: All implants became integrated with mature bone and the TM remained affixed to the implant by stabilizers. Compared with the corresponding lingual wall, the buccal walls were markedly resorbed in all samples, irrespective of the presence or absence of TM exposure. No residual CM could be detected over the TM, even in the unexposed site. A soft-tissue layer was generally observed under the TM, and a void could be seen in some exposed specimens (Fig. 4).


The effect of overlaying titanium mesh with collagen membrane for ridge preservation.

Lim HC, Lee JS, Choi SH, Jung UW - J Periodontal Implant Sci (2015)

Photomicrographs of exposed sites in the TM group (A) and CM group (B), and of nonexposed sites in the TM group (C) and the CM group (D). The buccal walls were significantly resorbed in all samples, irrespective of the presence or absence of TM exposure. Hematoxylin-eosin stain; scale bars = 2 mm.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4556798&req=5

Figure 4: Photomicrographs of exposed sites in the TM group (A) and CM group (B), and of nonexposed sites in the TM group (C) and the CM group (D). The buccal walls were significantly resorbed in all samples, irrespective of the presence or absence of TM exposure. Hematoxylin-eosin stain; scale bars = 2 mm.
Mentions: All implants became integrated with mature bone and the TM remained affixed to the implant by stabilizers. Compared with the corresponding lingual wall, the buccal walls were markedly resorbed in all samples, irrespective of the presence or absence of TM exposure. No residual CM could be detected over the TM, even in the unexposed site. A soft-tissue layer was generally observed under the TM, and a void could be seen in some exposed specimens (Fig. 4).

Bottom Line: Biopsy specimens were retrieved for histologic and histomorphometric analyses after 16 weeks.The distances between the fixture platform and the first bone-implant contact and the bone crest did not differ significantly between the TM and CM groups.Our study suggests that the additional use of a CM over TM does not offer added benefit for mucosal healing and buccal bone preservation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Periodontology, Kyung Hee University School of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of overlaying titanium mesh (TM) with an adjunctive collagen membrane (CM) for preserving the buccal bone when used in association with immediate implant placement in dogs.

Methods: Immediate implant placements were performed in the mesial sockets of the third premolars of five dogs. At one site the TM was attached to the fixture with the aid of its own stabilizers and then covered by a CM (CM group), while the contralateral site received only TM (TM group). Biopsy specimens were retrieved for histologic and histomorphometric analyses after 16 weeks.

Results: All samples exhibited pronounced buccal bone resorption, and a high rate of TM exposure was noted (in three and four cases of the five samples in each of the TM and CM groups, respectively). A dense fibrous tissue with little vascularity or cellularity had infiltrated through the pores of the TM irrespective of the presence of a CM. The distances between the fixture platform and the first bone-implant contact and the bone crest did not differ significantly between the TM and CM groups.

Conclusions: Our study suggests that the additional use of a CM over TM does not offer added benefit for mucosal healing and buccal bone preservation.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus