Comparison of Resorbable and Nonresorbable Membrane for Guided Bone Regeneration in Implant Dehiscence Defects.
10.5051/jkape.2000.30.2.323
- Author:
Tae Hoon KWON
1
;
Chin Hyung CHUNG
;
Sung Bin YIM
Author Information
1. Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- MeSH:
Anti-Bacterial Agents;
Bicuspid;
Bone Regeneration*;
Humans;
Mandible;
Maxilla;
Membranes*;
Periodontics;
Tooth
- From:The Journal of the Korean Academy of Periodontology
2000;30(2):323-334
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to examine the frequency of dehiscence bone defect on peri-implant and to compare the difference between resorbable membrane and non-resorbable membrane in bone regeneration on peri-implant. Amomg the patients, 22 patientswho have recieved an implant surgery at the department of Periodontics in Dankook University Dental Hospital showed implant exposure due to the dehiscence defect and 27 implants of these 22 patients were the target of the treatment. Gore-Tex(R) and Bio-mesh(R) were applied to the patients and treated them with antibiotics for five days both preoperatively and postoperatively. Reentry period was 26 weeks on average in maxilla and 14 weeks on average in mandible. The results were as follows: 1. Dehiscence bone defect frequently appeared in premolar in mandible and anterior teeth in maxilla respectively. 2. Among 27 cases, 2 membrane exposures were observed and in these two cases, regenerated area was decreased. 3. In non-resorbable membrane, bone surface area 9.25+/-4.84 preoperatively and significantly increased to 11.48+/-7.52 postoperatively.(P<0.05) 4. In resorbable membrane, bone surface area was 14.80+/-8.25 preoperatively and meaningfully widened to 17.61+/-10.67 postoperatively.(P<0.05) 5. The increase of bone surface area in non-resorbable membrane was 2.23+/-3.38 and the increase of bone surface area in resorbable membrane was 2.80+/-3.00 ;therefore, there was no significant difference between these two membranes(P<0.05). This study implies that the surgical method using DFDB and membrane on peri-implant bone defect is effective in bone regeneration regardless the kind of the membrane, and a similar result was shown when a resorbable membrane was used.
