Cargando…

Retrospective comparative clinical study for silk mat application into extraction socket

BACKGROUND: Silk mats have been approved for clinical trials by the Korean Food and Drug Administration as membranes for guided tissue regeneration (GTR). In this study, silk mat application was compared to high-density polytetrafluoroethylene (dPTFE) membrane application or no membrane group. METHO...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Ju-Won, Jo, You-Young, Kim, Jwa-Young, Oh, Ji-hyeon, Yang, Byoung-Eun, Kim, Seong-Gon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6459888/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31058105
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40902-019-0199-z
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Silk mats have been approved for clinical trials by the Korean Food and Drug Administration as membranes for guided tissue regeneration (GTR). In this study, silk mat application was compared to high-density polytetrafluoroethylene (dPTFE) membrane application or no membrane group. METHODS: To compare the silk mat group to the dPTFE group or the no membrane group, a retrospective sample collection was conducted. Bony defects were measured at the time of extraction (T0) and then at 3 months (T1) and 6 months after extraction (T2) on a digital panoramic view. Bone gain (BG) was calculated by subtracting from the bony defect at T0 to the bony defect at each follow-up. RESULTS: The BG at T2 was 2.44 ± 2.49 mm, 4.18 ± 1.80 mm, and 4.24 ± 2.05 mm in the no membrane group, silk mat group, and dPTFE group, respectively. Both membrane groups had significantly higher BG than BG in the no membrane group at T2 (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both membrane groups showed higher BG than the no membrane group.