Enamel Matrix Derivative and Bone Healing After Guided Bone Regeneration in Dehiscence-Type Defects Around Implants. A Histomorphometric Study in Dogs
- Autores: Marcio Z. Casati, Dr. Enilson A. Sallum, Francisco H. Nociti Jr., Raúl Caffesse, Antonio Wilson Sallum
- Localización: Journal of periodontology, ISSN 0022-3492, Vol. 73, Nº. 7, 2002, págs. 789-796
- Idioma: inglés
- Enlaces
-
Resumen
Background: The goal of this investigation was to histometrically evaluate the effect of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on bone healing after guided bone regeneration (GBR) in dehiscence-type osseous defects around dental implants; i.e., in the absence of periodontal ligament cells.
Methods: Six mongrel dogs were used. The second, third, and fourth mandibular premolars (p2, p3, and p4) and first molars (ml ) were extracted. After 3 months, 2 implant osteotomies were prepared in each side of the mandible, dehiscence-type defects were created on the buccal aspect of each implant osteotomy (3.5 mm × 5.0 mm), and titanium implants were placed (3.75 mm × 8.5 mm). The surgically-created defects were randomly assigned to one of the treatments: EMD, GBR, EMD+GBR, or control. After 2 months, 4 additional defects were created and treated. The animals were sacrificed 3 months after the placement of the first implants, thus allowing the healing periods of 1 and 3 months. Undecalcified sections were obtained for the histometric evaluation including the percentage of bone-to-implant contact and new bone area on the implant threads related to the defect.
Results: No statistically significant differences were observed among the groups in the evaluated parameters after 1 month of healing. After 3 months, no statistically significant differences were observed among the groups for the percentage of bone-to-implant contact. The values for the new bone area were: 55.5 ± 11.8, 53.8 ± 16.3, 62.1 ± 18.4, and 36.9 ± 25.1 for EMD, GBR, EMD+GBR, and control, respectively. The difference between EMD+GBR and control was statistically significant (P < 0.05).
Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, it can be concluded that EMD may positively influence bone healing after GBR around titanium implants. EMD alone, however, had no statistically significant effect.
