摘要
目的了解牙种植体周围骨缺损不同修复方式的价值。方法建立实验犬骨缺损模型。按照分组要求实验犬每侧股骨于5个部位植入5枚种植体:分别将种植体植入人工骨缺损区加实验用骨修复材料;植入人工骨缺损区加骨修复材料和生物膜;植入人工骨缺损区加生物膜;植入人工骨缺损区作空白对照;植入无缺损区作为总的对照。行三维CT扫描进行观察,以期了解不同修复方式的优劣。结果应用骨修复材料和(或)生物膜组修复效果优于单纯骨缺损组,同时应用骨修复材料和生物膜组与单纯应用骨修复材料组效果相近。结论在一定范围内的牙种植体周围骨缺损,应用骨修复材料和(或)生物膜组修复效果良好,但生物膜的作用不明显。
Objective To explore the value of bone regeneration after repair the periimplant bone defect in different ways. Methods Model of periimplant bone defects were established on the basis of dogs. According to the experimental requirements, 5 implants were installed on each side of femoral bone of every dog. Implants were separately installed in bone defect area, and treated with various bone repair material s in order to understand different osteogenic characteristics and the biocompatibilities of osseointegration. Periimplant bone with laboratory osteoinduetive materials and biological membranes were applied to evaluate influences of biological membranes on osteogenesis. Moreover, merely biological membrane was added in periimplant bone defect to explore its leading effects on bone formation. Bone defect with nothing was used to indicate the selfregeneration capabilities. Implants without defect was regarded as a total control. Three dimensional CT scan by different methods were compared. Results The osteogenetic effect of bone defect with bone repair materials and （or） biological membranes was better than that of bone defect with nothing. Meanwhile, the bone repair ability of using repair materials group was close to effect of simply biofilm group. Conclusion Within a certain range of periimplant bone defects, good effect can be achieved by applying bone repair materials and （or） biofilm groups, whereas the effect of biological membranes is not apparent.
出处
《临床放射学杂志》
CSCD
北大核心
2013年第9期1350-1353,共4页
Journal of Clinical Radiology
