Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
Related content
(Reference retrieved automatically from Web of Science through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

Peri-implant reconstruction using autologous periosteum-derived cells and guided bone regeneration

Full text
Author(s):
Ribeiro, Fernanda Vieira [1] ; Suaid, Fabricia Ferreira [1] ; Silverio Ruiz, Karina Gonzales [1] ; Rodrigues, Thaisangela Lopes [1] ; Carvalho, Marcelo Diniz [1] ; Nociti, Francisco Humberto [1] ; Sallum, Enilson Antonio [1] ; Casati, Marcio Zaffalon [1]
Total Authors: 8
Affiliation:
[1] Univ Campinas UNICAMP, Sch Dent Piracicaba, Dept Prosthodont & Periodont, Sao Paulo - Brazil
Total Affiliations: 1
Document type: Journal article
Source: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY; v. 37, n. 12, p. 1128-1136, DEC 2010.
Web of Science Citations: 7
Abstract

P>Aim This investigation evaluated the bone healing in peri-implant defects treated with periosteum-derived cells (PCs) and guided bone regeneration (GBR). Material and Methods PCs were harvested from six beagle dogs and characterized in vitro with regard to their osteogenic properties. The animals were subjected to teeth extraction in the mandible, and after 3 months of healing, implant sites were drilled, bone dehiscences were created and implants were placed. Dehiscences were randomly assigned to: PCs+GBR, GBR, PCs and non-treated defects. After 3 months, the implants/adjacent tissues were processed. Bone-to-implant contact (BIC) bone fill (BF) within implant threads, and bone area (BA) in a zone lateral to the implant were obtained. Results In vitro analyses confirmed the osteogenic potential of PCs. Histometrically, no statistically significant differences were observed among the PCs+GBR, GBR and PCs groups for both BF and BIC (p > 0.05), whereas these groups showed statistically higher values, as compared with the non-treated group (p < 0.05). With respect to BA, the PCs+GBR and GBR groups presented significantly higher means, as compared with the PCs and non-treated groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion Although successful outcomes have been promoted by using the combined approach, PCs in conjunction with membranes did not provide additional benefit during peri-implant bone regeneration, when compared with the therapeutic approaches used alone. (AU)