You are here

Home » Content

DENEYSEL KEMİK DEFEKTLERININ ONARIMINDA YÖNLENDİRİLMİŞ DOKU REJENERASYONU (YDR)'NUN VE YDR İLE BİRLİKTE DEĞİŞİK KEMİK GREFTLERİNİN BİRLİKTE UYGULANMASININ HİSTOPATOLOJİK OLARAK ARAŞTIRILMASI

Journal Name:

  • İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2000

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Histopathological emmination ofthe effects of Guided Tissues Regeneration (GTR) and GTR together with various bone graft materials on the repair of experimentally created bone de-feets. The aim of this study to evaluate and compare the effects of allograft (Tutoplast®-Spon-giosa-Pfrimmer-Viggo, Biodynamics, Inc, Gernıany), xenograft (Bio-Oss®, Geitslich Sons Ltd Wolhusen, Switzerland), and guided tıssue regeneration (GTR, Tutoplast®-Dura Biodynamics Int Deutchland, GmbH, Erlangen) on bone defeets. We used 40 maies Sprague-Dawley rats. Ali of the rats wcre divided into two grotıps. First group of rats were sacrifİced at the end of 3"1 week the one in the second group were sacrificcd at the end of 6th week. These two groups were divided into four groups according to the mate-rial used. Membrane is the most effective bone forming material when compared to allograft and xcnog-raft materials
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmada amacımız yönlendirilmiş doku rcjenerasyonu (YDR, TutopIast®-Dura Biodyna-mics Int Deutchland, GmbH, Erlangen) ve YDR ile birlikte allojenik (Tutopiasf®-Spongiosa-Pfrimmer-Viggo, Biodynamics, Inc, Gcrmany) ve ksenojenik (Bio-Oss®, Geitslich Sons Ltd AVolhusen, Switzerland) kemik greftlerinin kemik defekti iyileşmesi üzerine olan etkilerini karşılaştırmaktır. Araştırmayı 40 adet Sprague-Dawley sıçan üzerinde gerçekleştirdik. Üç ve allı haftalık iki ana grup belirledik. Bu İki grubu da kullanılan materyale göre dört alt gruba ayırdık. İlk grubu 3. haftanın sonunda, ikinci grubu oluşturan sıçanları 6. haftanın sonunda sakrİfıye ettik. Membran grubunun tek başına kullanıldığında öteki gruplara oranla daha başarılı olduğunu tespit ettik.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-deneysel-kemik-defektlerinin-onariminda-yonlendirilmis-doku-rejenerasyonu-ydrnun-ydr-ile-birlikte-degisik-kemik-greftlerinin-birlikte-uygulanmasinin-histopatolojik.pdf
  • 2
170-175
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Akal KÜ, Cambazoğîıı M: Kistektomi, Kronik Enfeksiyon Bölgelerinin Küretajı ve Apikal Rezeksiyon Operasyonları Sonucunda Oluşan Kemik Defektlerinde Solvent-lerle Dehİdrate Edilmiş Kemik Cipslerinin Kullanılması. AÜ Diş Hck Fak Derg 22: 103 (1995).
2. Anncı A : Clİnical Experience of Allograft materiai (Tu-topiast) at Mandibtılar Reconscruction after uımor resee-tion. Med.Bu11. of İstanbul Med. Fac. 32:2 (1999).
3. Bluiım AE, Laskin DM: The effecl of poiyterafluoroeth-ylene cylinders osteognencsis in rai fibular defects: A prcliminary study. J Oral Maxillofasial Surg 53:163 (1995).
4. Buser D, Dahlirı C, Schenk RK: Guided Tissues Regeneration in Implant Denlistry. Quintessence, Chicago, 1.Baskı (1994), sayfa :31,
5. Caplanis N, Sigurdsson TJ, Rohrer MD, Wikesjo UM: Effect of allogeneic, freeze-dried, demineralised bone nıalrix on guided bone regeneration in supra-alveolar pe-ri-implant defects in dogs. Int Oral Maxillofacial İmplants 12:634 (1997).
6. Caffcsse RG, Nasjleti CE: Response to an absorbable membrane for guided tissues regeneration i» dogs. J Deııt Res 71:297 (1992).
7. Dahlin C, Sandberg E, Alberiııs P, Linde A: Rcstoration of Mandibular Nonunion Bone Defects: An experimenlal Study in Rats Using an Osteopronıotive Membrane Mcl-hod. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 23: 237 (1994).
8. Fugazzotto PA, Hempton TJ: Guided tissues-regeneration in oral rcconstruction: Surgical and reslorative appli¬cation. JADA 124:82(1993).
9. Fonseca RJ, Davis WH: Reconstructive Preprosthetic Oral and MaxillofaciaI Surgery, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, (1995), sayfa: 41.
10. Hurzeler MB, Kohal RJ, Naghsbandi J, Mota LF, Con-rant J, Hucmacher D, Caffess RG: Evaiuation of a new bioresorbable barrier to facilitate guided bone regeneration around exposed implant threads. An experimental study in the monkey. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 27: 315 (1998).
11. Lundgren AK, Sennerby L, Lıındgrcn D: Guided Jaw-Bonc Regeneration Using an Experinıeııtal Rabbit Model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 27:135 (1998).
12. Polson AM: Peıiodontal regeneration. Current Stalus and Directions. Onintessence, Chicago, 1. Baskı()995),137.
13. Sandberg E, Dahlin C, Linde A: Bone Regeneration by the Ostcopromotion Technİque Using Btoabsorbable Membranes: An experimenlal study in rats. J Oral Maxil-lofac Surg 51:1106 (1993).
14. Scanilebury TV: 1982-1992: A Deeadc of Technology Development for Guided Tissue Regeneration. J Perio-dontol 64:1129(1993).
15. Wikesjo U, Nilveus R. Periodontal repair in dogs: Effect of vvound stabilisation on healing. J Periodontol "61:719 (1990).
16. Yazar TT. Sürekli Kemik Defektlerinde Yönlendirilmiş Doku Rejenerasyonunun Osteogenesîs Üzerine Etkilerinin Histopatolojik Araştırılması. Doktora Tezi, İstanbul, (1998), sayfa: 16.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com