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
_version_ 1783410245312184320
author Kim, Ju-Won
Jo, You-Young
Kim, Jwa-Young
Oh, Ji-hyeon
Yang, Byoung-Eun
Kim, Seong-Gon
author_facet Kim, Ju-Won
Jo, You-Young
Kim, Jwa-Young
Oh, Ji-hyeon
Yang, Byoung-Eun
Kim, Seong-Gon
author_sort Kim, Ju-Won
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6459888
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64598882019-05-03 Retrospective comparative clinical study for silk mat application into extraction socket Kim, Ju-Won Jo, You-Young Kim, Jwa-Young Oh, Ji-hyeon Yang, Byoung-Eun Kim, Seong-Gon Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg Research 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. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019-04-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6459888/ /pubmed/31058105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40902-019-0199-z Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research
Kim, Ju-Won
Jo, You-Young
Kim, Jwa-Young
Oh, Ji-hyeon
Yang, Byoung-Eun
Kim, Seong-Gon
Retrospective comparative clinical study for silk mat application into extraction socket
title Retrospective comparative clinical study for silk mat application into extraction socket
title_full Retrospective comparative clinical study for silk mat application into extraction socket
title_fullStr Retrospective comparative clinical study for silk mat application into extraction socket
title_full_unstemmed Retrospective comparative clinical study for silk mat application into extraction socket
title_short Retrospective comparative clinical study for silk mat application into extraction socket
title_sort retrospective comparative clinical study for silk mat application into extraction socket
topic Research
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT kimjuwon retrospectivecomparativeclinicalstudyforsilkmatapplicationintoextractionsocket
AT joyouyoung retrospectivecomparativeclinicalstudyforsilkmatapplicationintoextractionsocket
AT kimjwayoung retrospectivecomparativeclinicalstudyforsilkmatapplicationintoextractionsocket
AT ohjihyeon retrospectivecomparativeclinicalstudyforsilkmatapplicationintoextractionsocket
AT yangbyoungeun retrospectivecomparativeclinicalstudyforsilkmatapplicationintoextractionsocket
AT kimseonggon retrospectivecomparativeclinicalstudyforsilkmatapplicationintoextractionsocket