论文部分内容阅读
目的了解牙种植体周围骨缺损不同修复方式的价值。方法建立实验犬骨缺损模型。按照分组要求实验犬每侧股骨于5个部位植入5枚种植体:分别将种植体植入人工骨缺损区加实验用骨修复材料;植入人工骨缺损区加骨修复材料和生物膜;植入人工骨缺损区加生物膜;植入人工骨缺损区作空白对照;植入无缺损区作为总的对照。行三维CT扫描进行观察,以期了解不同修复方式的优劣。结果应用骨修复材料和(或)生物膜组修复效果优于单纯骨缺损组,同时应用骨修复材料和生物膜组与单纯应用骨修复材料组效果相近。结论在一定范围内的牙种植体周围骨缺损,应用骨修复材料和(或)生物膜组修复效果良好,但生物膜的作用不明显。
Objective To understand the value of different repair methods of bone defects around dental implants. Methods Establishment of experimental dog bone defect model. According to the grouping requirements, 5 implants were implanted in 5 sites on each side of the femur. The implants were implanted into the artificial bone defect area and the experimental bone repair materials respectively. The artificial bone implants were implanted with bone repair materials and biofilm. Implantation of artificial bone defect area with biofilm; implantation of artificial bone defect area as a blank control; implantation of defect-free zone as a total control. Three-dimensional CT scan line to observe the pros and cons of different repair methods. Results The application of bone repair material and / or biofilm repair group was better than that of simple bone defect group. The application of bone repair material and biofilm group was similar to that of bone repair material group. Conclusion In a certain range of dental implants around the bone defects, the application of bone repair materials and (or) biofilm repair effect is good, but the role of biofilm is not obvious.