...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Research in Medical and Dental Science >Posterior Mandibular Tooth Socket Preservation with Amniotic Membrane and Allograft Bone versus Conventional Methods
【24h】

Posterior Mandibular Tooth Socket Preservation with Amniotic Membrane and Allograft Bone versus Conventional Methods

机译:与传统方法相比,羊膜和同种异体骨后牙后牙窝保存的比较

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Tooth socket preservation has become a key component of contemporary clinical dentistry. This term designates alveolar preservation that achieved by immediate filling of the undamaged tooth socket with biomaterials. Different types of bone substitutions and membranes have been utilized for socket augmentation. Our goal was to evaluate the efficacy of the amniotic membrane, as a new material, on bone density in comparison with conventional methods in this study. In this randomized clinical trial 75 patients (48 females and 27 males) underwent mandibular molar extraction and socket preservation by using allograft bone in control group: allograft bone with collagen membrane in group 1 and allograft bone with amniotic membrane in group 2. All 25 stages of socket preservation procedures in each group were done by the same surgeon and evaluated by the same radiographic machine. The data were statistically analyzed by SPSS software, one-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests. P value <0.05 was considered as significant. The results of this study showed that after 4 months the mean density difference in extracted site was 1736.88 in control group; for patients who underwent socket preservation with allograft and collagen membrane it was 1746.20 and in cases with allograft in addition amniotic membrane it was 1762.48. The results demonstrated that, compared with control group, both collagen membrane and amniotic membrane showed a higher bone density mean (P Value =/998 and P Value = /918), but this difference was not statistically significant. Whereas amniotic membrane showed a higher bone density than the collagen membrane, there are no significant differences between these two groups (P Value =/994). Although socket preservation methods may be effective on alveolar bone contour stability, we cannot significantly confirm the efficacy of these methods on bone quality and density.
机译:牙槽保护已成为当代临床牙科的重要组成部分。该术语表示通过用生物材料立即填充未损坏的牙槽来实现的牙槽保护。不同类型的骨替代物和膜已被用于牙槽窝增强。我们的目标是与本研究中的常规方法相比,评估羊膜作为一种新材料对骨密度的功效。在这项随机临床试验中,在对照组中,使用同种异体骨对75例患者(48名女性和27名男性)进行了下颌磨牙的拔除和窝槽保存:第1组为带胶原膜的同种异体骨,第2组为同种羊膜的同种异体骨。共25个阶段每组的牙槽窝保留程序的检查均由同一位外科医生完成,并由同一台射线照相机进行评估。通过SPSS软件,单向方差分析和Tukey事后检验对数据进行统计分析。 P值<0.05被认为是显着的。研究结果表明,对照组4个月后,提取部位的平均密度差为1736.88。对于采用同种异体移植和胶原膜进行窝窝保存的患者,其值为1746.20;对于具有羊膜的同种异体移植患者,其值为1762.48。结果表明,与对照组相比,胶原膜和羊膜均显示出较高的骨密度平均值(P值= / 998和P值= / 918),但差异无统计学意义。羊膜的骨密度高于胶原膜,但两组之间无显着差异(P值= / 994)。尽管窝槽保留方法可能对牙槽骨轮廓稳定有效,但我们不能显着证实这些方法对骨质量和密度的有效性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号