PURPOSE: Distraction osteogenesis has been applied to the maxillofacial implantology and good experimental and clinical results have been reported. However, histologic studies of implants placement on distraction osteogenesis of atrophic alveolar ridges are scarce. In this study, we compare the bone formation between in the transport part and in the distraction part by histomorphometric analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three adult beagle dogs were served as experimental subjects. The 2 premolars and 1st molar were extracted on the Lt. side of mandible in each beagle dog. After one month later, osteotomy was performed and distraction device was adapted. Distraction was performed with gradual incremental separation of two bone pieces at a rate of 1.0mm per day for 5 days. During consolidation phase, new bone was formed in the distraction zone between the separated bone pieces. 5 weeks after distraction phase, 3 implants were placed in each beagle dog. The implants were inserted through transport part and distraction part and inferior basal bone. The animals were sacrificed at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks after implant placement. BIC and BA of implants on distraction part and transport part were measured histomorphometrically. RESULTS: BIC, BA increased after implant placement as time goes by passes and new bone formation was slightly higher in transport part than in distraction part at 2 weeks, 4 weeks after implant placement. At 12 weeks after implant placement, BIC, BA of were 74%, 61% in transport part and 77%, 59% in distraction part, therefore there were no difference in BIC and BA between transport part and distraction part at 12 weeks after implant placement.
Adult ; Animals ; Bicuspid ; Dogs* ; Humans ; Mandible ; Molar ; Osteogenesis* ; Osteogenesis, Distraction ; Osteotomy

PURPOSE: The prognostic influence of 3-dimensional tumor volume (Tv) on breast cancer compared to conventional 1-dimensional tumor size (T) was investigated. METHODS: Analysis was performed on a cohort of 8,996 primary breast cancer patients who were initially diagnosed with TNM stage I–III. Tumor size was defined as the maximum tumor dimension, and Tv was calculated by the equation of (4π× r1 × r2 × r3)/3; r1, r2, and r3 were defined as half of the largest, intermediate, and shortest dimension of the tumor, respectively. Tv was classified into Tv1, Tv2, and Tv3 according to the cut off values of 2.056 cm3 and 20.733 cm3. RESULTS: The survival curves according to both the T and Tv categories were clearly differentiated (all P < 0.001), as were those for staging by T and Tv (all P < 0.001). In T1 and T2 tumors, the Tv1 group showed superior survival over the Tv2 group (T1, P < 0.001; T2, P = 0.001). Univariate and multivariate analysis both indicated that Tv was a significant prognostic factor (both P < 0.001). The receiver operating characteristic curve showed that the area under the curves were 0.712 (P < 0.001) for Tv and 0.699 (P < 0.001) for T. Positive correlations were observed between the number of positive nodes and T (coefficient = 0.325; P < 0.001), and between the number of positive nodes and Tv (coefficient = 0.321; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Tv classification works well for predicting the prognosis of breast cancer, and it is a better predictor than conventional T classification in several aspects. Further studies are needed to validate the practical usefulness of Tv classification in clinical settings.
Breast Neoplasms* ; Breast* ; Classification ; Cohort Studies ; Humans ; Multivariate Analysis ; Prognosis ; ROC Curve ; Survival Analysis ; Tumor Burden*