Volume 31, Issue 9 pp. 730-735

Prognostic factors for alveolar regeneration: effect of tissue occlusion on alveolar bone regeneration with guided tissue regeneration

Giuseppe Polimeni

Giuseppe Polimeni

Laboratory for Applied Periodontal and Craniofacial Regeneration, Department of Periodontology, Temple University School of Dentistry, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Ki-Tae Koo

Ki-Tae Koo

Laboratory for Applied Periodontal and Craniofacial Regeneration, Department of Periodontology, Temple University School of Dentistry, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Mohammed Qahash

Mohammed Qahash

Laboratory for Applied Periodontal and Craniofacial Regeneration, Department of Periodontology, Temple University School of Dentistry, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Andreas V. Xiropaidis

Andreas V. Xiropaidis

Laboratory for Applied Periodontal and Craniofacial Regeneration, Department of Periodontology, Temple University School of Dentistry, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Jasim M. Albandar

Jasim M. Albandar

Department of Periodontology, Temple University School of Dentistry, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Ulf M. E. Wikesjö

Ulf M. E. Wikesjö

Laboratory for Applied Periodontal and Craniofacial Regeneration, Department of Periodontology, Temple University School of Dentistry, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 12 August 2004
Citations: 35
Address:
Dr Giuseppe Polimeni
Laboratory for Applied Periodontal and Craniofacial Regeneration
Department of Periodontology
Temple University School of Dentistry
3223 North Broad Street
Philadelphia
PA 19140
USA
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Objectives: Design criteria for guided tissue regeneration (GTR) devices include biocompatibility, cell occlusion, space-provision, tissue integration, and ease of use. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of cell occlusion and space-provision on alveolar bone regeneration in conjunction with GTR.

Methods: Routine, critical-size, 6 mm, supra-alveolar, periodontal defects were created in 6 young adult Beagle dogs. Space-providing ePTFE devices, with or without 300-μm laser-drilled pores were implanted to provide for GTR. Treatments were alternated between left and right jaw quadrants in subsequent animals. The gingival flaps were advanced for primary intention healing. The animals were euthanized at week 8 post surgery. The histometric analysis assessed regeneration of alveolar bone relative to space-provision by the ePTFE device.

Results: A significant relationship was observed between bone regeneration and space-provision for defect sites receiving the occlusive (β=0.194; p<0.02) and porous (β=0.229; p<0.0004) GTR devices irrespective of treatment (p=0.14). The bivariate analysis showed that both space-provision and device occlusivity significantly enhanced bone regeneration. Hence, sites receiving the occlusive GTR device and sites with enhanced space-provision showed significantly greater bone regeneration compared to sites receiving the porous GTR device (p=0.03) or more limited space-provision (p=0.0002).

Conclusions: Cell occlusion and space-provision may significantly influence the magnitude of alveolar bone regeneration in conjunction with guided tissue regeneration.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.