Comparative study of the osseointegration of dental implants after different bone augmentation techniques: vascularized femur flap, non-vascularized femur graft and mandibular bone graft

被引:9
作者
Benlidayi, M. Emre [1 ]
Gaggl, Alexander [2 ]
Buerger, Heinz [3 ]
Brandner, Christian [4 ]
Kurkcu, Mehmet [1 ]
Unlugenc, Hakki [5 ]
机构
[1] Cukurova Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, TR-01330 Adana, Turkey
[2] Gen Hosp Klagenfurt, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Klagenfurt, Austria
[3] Gen Hosp Klagenfurt, Dept Trauma Surg, Klagenfurt, Austria
[4] Paracelsius Med Univ, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Salzburg, Austria
[5] Cukurova Univ, Fac Med, Dept Anesthesiol, Adana, Turkey
关键词
animal experiments; bone-implant interactions; bone regeneration; guided tissue regeneration; FIBULA FREE-FLAP; SUPRACONDYLAR REGION; RECONSTRUCTION; DEFECTS; MAXILLARY; INSERTION; TISSUES;
D O I
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02013.x
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate the osseointegration of the dental implants placed into the mandible augmented with different techniques in pigs. Material and methods Four adult domestic pigs were used. Horizontal augmentation of the mandible was performed in animals by using vascularized femur flap (VFF), non-vascularized femur graft (NVFG) and monocortical mandibular block graft (MG). After 5 months of healing 10 dental implants were placed into each augmented site. The pigs were sacrificed after 3 months of healing. Undecalcified sections were prepared for histomorphometric analysis. Results Mean bone-implant contact (BIC) values for implants placed into MG, NVFG and VFF were 57.38 +/- 11.97%, 76.5 +/- 7.88%, 76.53 +/- 8.15%, respectively. The BIC values of NVFG and VFF group were significantly greater than MG group (P < 0.001). On the other hand, there was not statistically significant difference between NVFG group and VFF group (P=0.999). Conclusion NVFG as well as VFF can be considered as a promising method for augmentation of alveolar defects and the placement of the implants. The selection of non-vascularized graft or vascularized flap depends on the condition of the recipient site. To cite this article:Benlidayi ME, Gaggl A, Burger H, Brandner C, Kurkcu M, Unlugenc H. Comparative study of the osseointegration of dental implants after different bone augmentation techniques: vascularized femur flap, non-vascularized femur graft and mandibular bone graft.Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 22, 2011; 594-599doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02013.x.
引用
收藏
页码:594 / 599
页数:6
相关论文
共 42 条
[1]   Comparison of Vascularized Osteoperiosteal Femur Flaps and Nonvascularized Femur Grafts for Reconstruction of Mandibular Defects: An Experimental Study [J].
Benlidayi, Mehmet Emre ;
Gaggl, Alexander ;
Buerger, Heinz ;
Kurkcu, Mehmet ;
Unluzgenc, Hakki ;
Onal, Danyal ;
Polat, Sait ;
Sencar, Leman .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2009, 67 (06) :1174-1183
[2]  
BRUNELLI G, 1991, INT SURG, V76, P33
[3]  
BURCHARDT H, 1983, ORTHOPEDICS RELATED, V174, P28
[4]   Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants [J].
Chiapasco, Matteo ;
Zaniboni, Marco ;
Boisco, Maurizio .
CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2006, 17 :136-159
[5]   Bone augmentation at fenestrated implants by an osteopromotive membrane technique [J].
Dahlin, C. ;
Andersson, L. ;
Linde, A. .
CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 1991, 2 (04) :159-165
[6]  
DOI K, 1994, MICROSURG, V15, P305, DOI 10.1002/micr.1920150505
[7]   A METHOD FOR THE STUDY OF UNDECALCIFIED BONES AND TEETH WITH ATTACHED SOFT-TISSUES - THE SAGE-SCHLIFF (SAWING AND GRINDING) TECHNIQUE [J].
DONATH, K ;
BREUNER, G .
JOURNAL OF ORAL PATHOLOGY & MEDICINE, 1982, 11 (04) :318-326
[8]  
Ehrenfeld M, 2002, CRANIOMAXILLOFACIAL, P295
[9]  
Eisenschenk A, 1998, ORTHOPADE, V27, P491
[10]  
Foster RD, 1999, HEAD NECK-J SCI SPEC, V21, P66, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0347(199901)21:1<66::AID-HED9>3.3.CO