Home › Forums › Endodontics & conservative dentistry › Bone regeneration in periapical area
Welcome Dear Guest
To create a new topic please register on the forums. For help contact : discussdentistry@hotmail.com
- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 28/07/2011 at 12:35 pm by Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
25/07/2011 at 2:54 pm #12366AnonymousOnlineTopics: 0Replies: 1149Has thanked: 0 timesBeen thanked: 1 time
The indications for surgical endodontics have become fewer with the
advancements in non-surgical endodontic techniques and materials.
However, there are some cases, which definitely require an apical surgery.
The success of apical surgery depends on regeneration of the periapical
tissues and filling of the osseous defects. For this purpose, different grafts
are being used. One such allogenous bone graft is the r:ewly introduced
bio-resorbable, bioactive, natural hydroxyapatite crystals – NATGRAFT.The
effects of this graft on bone regeneration is evaluated in this study.The natural hydroxyapatite – NATGRAFT
is specially processed bovine bone. This
product is manufactured by Graftech, Chennai,
India and is available as granules or blocks.
In this study, the natural hydoxyapatite –
NATGRAFT has been used in granular form
to fill the bony defect. The hydroxyapatite
granules are white in color, measuring 100 to
350 mms in size and available in pre-sterilized
form in bottles. The chemical and physical
parameters are identical to that of human bone.
It is elastic just as natural bone, is revitalized
via migration of blood vessels and promotes
superficial bone formation (osteoconduction).27/07/2011 at 3:45 pm #17599sushantpatel_docOfflineRegistered On: 30/11/2009Topics: 510Replies: 666Has thanked: 0 timesBeen thanked: 0 timesIntroduction
The purpose of this study was to determine the bone regeneration potential to different root-end filling materials by evaluating the distance between the materials and newly regenerated bone after root-end surgery.Material and Methods
Periapical lesions were induced in premolars and molars of five female beagle dogs. The teeth were treated endodontically after the development of the lesions. After 1 week, the teeth underwent root-end surgery using modern microsurgical techniques. Three different root-end filing materials were used: amalgam (Tytin; Kerr Mfg Co, Romulus, MI), SuperEBA (Bosworth, Skokie, IL), and mineral trioxide aggregates (MTA; Dentsply, York, PA). After 4 months, the dogs were sacrificed, and the jaws were prepared for histological sectioning. The distances from the root-end filling materials to the regenerated bone were determined by the evaluation of microradiographic images of the sections with imaging software (Sigma Scan/Image; Jandel Scientific Software, San Rafael, CA). The results were statistically analyzed with analysis of variance using Sigma Stat software (Jandel Scientific Software, San Rafael, CA).Results
The mean distances from the newly regenerated bone were 0.397 ± 0.278 mm in the MTA group, 0.756 ± 0.581 mm in the SuperEBA group, and 1.290 ± 0.386 mm in the amalgam group. There was a statistically significant difference between the amalgam and MTA groups (p < 0.05). No significant differences existed for amalgam versus SuperEBA and SuperEBA versus MTA.Conclusion
MTA showed the most favorable periapical tissue response. The distance from MTA to the regenerated bone was similar to the normal average periodontal ligament thickness in dogs.28/07/2011 at 12:35 pm #17606 -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.