-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Multiscale analysis of craniomaxillofacial bone repair: A preclinical mini-pig study
P. Ticha, I. Pilawski, JA. Helms
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
35194780
DOI
10.1002/jper.21-0426
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- endoseální implantace zubů metody MeSH
- extrakce zubů metody MeSH
- miniaturní prasata MeSH
- prasata MeSH
- premolár chirurgie MeSH
- remodelace kosti MeSH
- zubní implantáty * MeSH
- zubní lůžko * diagnostické zobrazování chirurgie MeSH
- zvířata MeSH
- Check Tag
- zvířata MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
BACKGROUND: The rate of reparative osteogenesis controls when an implant is sufficiently stable as to allow functional loading. Using a mini pig model, the rate of reparative osteogenesis in two types of implant sites for example, an osteotomy versus a fresh extraction socket were compared. METHODS: Eight adult mini pigs were used for the study. In phase I, three premolars were extracted on one side of the oral cavity; 12 weeks later, in phase II, osteotomies were produced in healed extraction sites, and contralateral premolars were extracted. Animals were sacrificed 1, 5, and 12 weeks after phase II. Bone repair and remodeling were evaluated using quantitative micro-computed tomographic imaging, histology, and histochemical assays coupled with quantitative dynamic histomorphometry. RESULTS: One week after surgery, extraction sockets and osteotomy sites exhibited similar patterns of new bone deposition. Five weeks after surgery, mineral apposition rates (MARs) were elevated at the injury sites relative to intact bone. Twelve weeks after surgery, the density of new bone in both injury sites was equivalent to intact bone but quantitative dynamic histomorphometry and cellular activity assays demonstrated bone remodeling was still underway. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanisms and rates of reparative osteogenesis were equivalent between fresh extraction sockets and osteotomies. The volume of new bone required to fill a socket, however, was significantly greater than the volume required to fill an osteotomy. These data provide a framework for estimating the rate of reparative osteogenesis and the time to loading of implants placed in healed sites versus fresh extraction sockets.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc22032939
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20230222110406.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 230120s2022 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1002/JPER.21-0426 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)35194780
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Tichá, Pavla $u Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA $u Department of Plastic Surgery, 3rd Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000219598618 $7 xx0282380
- 245 10
- $a Multiscale analysis of craniomaxillofacial bone repair: A preclinical mini-pig study / $c P. Ticha, I. Pilawski, JA. Helms
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND: The rate of reparative osteogenesis controls when an implant is sufficiently stable as to allow functional loading. Using a mini pig model, the rate of reparative osteogenesis in two types of implant sites for example, an osteotomy versus a fresh extraction socket were compared. METHODS: Eight adult mini pigs were used for the study. In phase I, three premolars were extracted on one side of the oral cavity; 12 weeks later, in phase II, osteotomies were produced in healed extraction sites, and contralateral premolars were extracted. Animals were sacrificed 1, 5, and 12 weeks after phase II. Bone repair and remodeling were evaluated using quantitative micro-computed tomographic imaging, histology, and histochemical assays coupled with quantitative dynamic histomorphometry. RESULTS: One week after surgery, extraction sockets and osteotomy sites exhibited similar patterns of new bone deposition. Five weeks after surgery, mineral apposition rates (MARs) were elevated at the injury sites relative to intact bone. Twelve weeks after surgery, the density of new bone in both injury sites was equivalent to intact bone but quantitative dynamic histomorphometry and cellular activity assays demonstrated bone remodeling was still underway. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanisms and rates of reparative osteogenesis were equivalent between fresh extraction sockets and osteotomies. The volume of new bone required to fill a socket, however, was significantly greater than the volume required to fill an osteotomy. These data provide a framework for estimating the rate of reparative osteogenesis and the time to loading of implants placed in healed sites versus fresh extraction sockets.
- 650 _2
- $a zvířata $7 D000818
- 650 _2
- $a prasata $7 D013552
- 650 12
- $a zubní lůžko $x diagnostické zobrazování $x chirurgie $7 D020390
- 650 _2
- $a miniaturní prasata $7 D013556
- 650 12
- $a zubní implantáty $7 D015921
- 650 _2
- $a premolár $x chirurgie $7 D001641
- 650 _2
- $a remodelace kosti $7 D016723
- 650 _2
- $a extrakce zubů $x metody $7 D014081
- 650 _2
- $a endoseální implantace zubů $x metody $7 D003758
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Pilawski, Igor $u Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
- 700 1_
- $a Helms, Jill A $u Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA $1 https://orcid.org/000000020463396X
- 773 0_
- $w MED00002889 $t Journal of periodontology $x 0022-3492 $g Roč. 93, č. 11 (2022), s. 1701-1711
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35194780 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20230120 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20230222110401 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1891605 $s 1184274
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2022 $b 93 $c 11 $d 1701-1711 $e 20220409 $i 0022-3492 $m Journal of periodontology $n J Periodontol $x MED00002889
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20230120