Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane: a comparative study in dogs
Identifieur interne : 005C93 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 005C92; suivant : 005C94Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane: a comparative study in dogs
Auteurs : Ronald E. Jung ; Vladimir Kokovic ; Milan Jurisic ; Duygu Yaman ; Karthikeyan Subramani ; Franz E. WeberSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2011-08.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Adult german sheepdogs, Barrier function, Biodegradable membrane, Bioresorbable, Bioresorbable membranes, Bone density, Bone formation, Bone mineral, Bone regeneration, Bone substitute material, Bone tissue, Bony defects, Bony walls, Buccal, Buccal aspect, Buccal side, Clinical photographs, Clinical trial, Collagen membrane, Comparative study, Corresponding groups, Dbbm, Defect, Defect margins, Defect size, Dental implants, Dental material science, Deproteinized, Experimental study, Extraction sockets, Friedman test, Good bone regeneration, Graft, Graft material, Healing period, Highest bone tissue level, Highest contact, Histomorphometric analysis, Horizontal bone gain, Horizontal extension, Implant, Implant placement, Implant shoulder, Implant system, Implants research, International journal, John wiley sons, Jung, Lateral ridge augmentation, Mandibular premolars, Maxillofacial surgery, Membrane, Membrane exposure, Membrane group, Membrane membrane, Negative control, Negative values, Novel membrane, Oral impl, Outer surface, Plga, Plga membrane, Positive control, Positive values, Present study, Quantitative information, Ranks test, Regenerated, Regenerated bone, Regeneration, Regenerative surgery, Removable prosthodontics, Resorbable, Resorbable collagen membrane, Resorbable trimethylene tacks, Restorative dentistry, Statistical analysis, Sterile saline solution, Surgical procedure, Surgical procedures, Tenting effect, Third thread, Tooth extraction, Treatment modalities, Weber, Wisdom teeth, Worse outcome, Wound closure.
- Teeft :
- Adult german sheepdogs, Barrier function, Biodegradable membrane, Bioresorbable, Bioresorbable membranes, Bone density, Bone formation, Bone mineral, Bone regeneration, Bone substitute material, Bone tissue, Bony defects, Bony walls, Buccal, Buccal aspect, Buccal side, Clinical photographs, Clinical trial, Collagen membrane, Comparative study, Corresponding groups, Dbbm, Defect, Defect margins, Defect size, Dental implants, Dental material science, Deproteinized, Experimental study, Extraction sockets, Friedman test, Good bone regeneration, Graft, Graft material, Healing period, Highest bone tissue level, Highest contact, Histomorphometric analysis, Horizontal bone gain, Horizontal extension, Implant, Implant placement, Implant shoulder, Implant system, Implants research, International journal, John wiley sons, Jung, Lateral ridge augmentation, Mandibular premolars, Maxillofacial surgery, Membrane, Membrane exposure, Membrane group, Membrane membrane, Negative control, Negative values, Novel membrane, Oral impl, Outer surface, Plga, Plga membrane, Positive control, Positive values, Present study, Quantitative information, Ranks test, Regenerated, Regenerated bone, Regeneration, Regenerative surgery, Removable prosthodontics, Resorbable, Resorbable collagen membrane, Resorbable trimethylene tacks, Restorative dentistry, Statistical analysis, Sterile saline solution, Surgical procedure, Surgical procedures, Tenting effect, Third thread, Tooth extraction, Treatment modalities, Weber, Wisdom teeth, Worse outcome, Wound closure.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare a newly developed biodegradable polylactide/polyglycolide/N‐methyl‐2‐pyrrolidone (PLGA/NMP) membrane with a standard resorbable collagen membrane (RCM) in combination with and without the use of a bone substitute material (deproteinized bovine bone mineral [DBBM]) looking at the proposed tenting effect and bone regeneration.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02068.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:BAA57CC9E2A311C5EC018E821191B8068FA5FB0DLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane: a comparative study in dogs</title><author><name sortKey="Jung, Ronald E" sort="Jung, Ronald E" uniqKey="Jung R" first="Ronald E." last="Jung">Ronald E. Jung</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Dental School, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kokovic, Vladimir" sort="Kokovic, Vladimir" uniqKey="Kokovic V" first="Vladimir" last="Kokovic">Vladimir Kokovic</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Clinic of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Jurisic, Milan" sort="Jurisic, Milan" uniqKey="Jurisic M" first="Milan" last="Jurisic">Milan Jurisic</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Clinic of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Yaman, Duygu" sort="Yaman, Duygu" uniqKey="Yaman D" first="Duygu" last="Yaman">Duygu Yaman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Subramani, Karthikeyan" sort="Subramani, Karthikeyan" uniqKey="Subramani K" first="Karthikeyan" last="Subramani">Karthikeyan Subramani</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Dental School, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Weber, Franz E" sort="Weber, Franz E" uniqKey="Weber F" first="Franz E." last="Weber">Franz E. Weber</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Oral Biotechnology & Bioengineering, Department of Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:BAA57CC9E2A311C5EC018E821191B8068FA5FB0D</idno><date when="2011" year="2011">2011</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02068.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/BAA57CC9E2A311C5EC018E821191B8068FA5FB0D/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">005C93</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">005C93</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane: a comparative study in dogs</title><author><name sortKey="Jung, Ronald E" sort="Jung, Ronald E" uniqKey="Jung R" first="Ronald E." last="Jung">Ronald E. Jung</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Dental School, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kokovic, Vladimir" sort="Kokovic, Vladimir" uniqKey="Kokovic V" first="Vladimir" last="Kokovic">Vladimir Kokovic</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Clinic of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Jurisic, Milan" sort="Jurisic, Milan" uniqKey="Jurisic M" first="Milan" last="Jurisic">Milan Jurisic</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Clinic of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Yaman, Duygu" sort="Yaman, Duygu" uniqKey="Yaman D" first="Duygu" last="Yaman">Duygu Yaman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Subramani, Karthikeyan" sort="Subramani, Karthikeyan" uniqKey="Subramani K" first="Karthikeyan" last="Subramani">Karthikeyan Subramani</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Dental School, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Weber, Franz E" sort="Weber, Franz E" uniqKey="Weber F" first="Franz E." last="Weber">Franz E. Weber</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Oral Biotechnology & Bioengineering, Department of Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">22</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">8</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="802">802</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="807">807</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011-08">2011-08</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Adult german sheepdogs</term><term>Barrier function</term><term>Biodegradable membrane</term><term>Bioresorbable</term><term>Bioresorbable membranes</term><term>Bone density</term><term>Bone formation</term><term>Bone mineral</term><term>Bone regeneration</term><term>Bone substitute material</term><term>Bone tissue</term><term>Bony defects</term><term>Bony walls</term><term>Buccal</term><term>Buccal aspect</term><term>Buccal side</term><term>Clinical photographs</term><term>Clinical trial</term><term>Collagen membrane</term><term>Comparative study</term><term>Corresponding groups</term><term>Dbbm</term><term>Defect</term><term>Defect margins</term><term>Defect size</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental material science</term><term>Deproteinized</term><term>Experimental study</term><term>Extraction sockets</term><term>Friedman test</term><term>Good bone regeneration</term><term>Graft</term><term>Graft material</term><term>Healing period</term><term>Highest bone tissue level</term><term>Highest contact</term><term>Histomorphometric analysis</term><term>Horizontal bone gain</term><term>Horizontal extension</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant shoulder</term><term>Implant system</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International journal</term><term>John wiley sons</term><term>Jung</term><term>Lateral ridge augmentation</term><term>Mandibular premolars</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Membrane</term><term>Membrane exposure</term><term>Membrane group</term><term>Membrane membrane</term><term>Negative control</term><term>Negative values</term><term>Novel membrane</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Outer surface</term><term>Plga</term><term>Plga membrane</term><term>Positive control</term><term>Positive values</term><term>Present study</term><term>Quantitative information</term><term>Ranks test</term><term>Regenerated</term><term>Regenerated bone</term><term>Regeneration</term><term>Regenerative surgery</term><term>Removable prosthodontics</term><term>Resorbable</term><term>Resorbable collagen membrane</term><term>Resorbable trimethylene tacks</term><term>Restorative dentistry</term><term>Statistical analysis</term><term>Sterile saline solution</term><term>Surgical procedure</term><term>Surgical procedures</term><term>Tenting effect</term><term>Third thread</term><term>Tooth extraction</term><term>Treatment modalities</term><term>Weber</term><term>Wisdom teeth</term><term>Worse outcome</term><term>Wound closure</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Adult german sheepdogs</term><term>Barrier function</term><term>Biodegradable membrane</term><term>Bioresorbable</term><term>Bioresorbable membranes</term><term>Bone density</term><term>Bone formation</term><term>Bone mineral</term><term>Bone regeneration</term><term>Bone substitute material</term><term>Bone tissue</term><term>Bony defects</term><term>Bony walls</term><term>Buccal</term><term>Buccal aspect</term><term>Buccal side</term><term>Clinical photographs</term><term>Clinical trial</term><term>Collagen membrane</term><term>Comparative study</term><term>Corresponding groups</term><term>Dbbm</term><term>Defect</term><term>Defect margins</term><term>Defect size</term><term>Dental implants</term><term>Dental material science</term><term>Deproteinized</term><term>Experimental study</term><term>Extraction sockets</term><term>Friedman test</term><term>Good bone regeneration</term><term>Graft</term><term>Graft material</term><term>Healing period</term><term>Highest bone tissue level</term><term>Highest contact</term><term>Histomorphometric analysis</term><term>Horizontal bone gain</term><term>Horizontal extension</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant placement</term><term>Implant shoulder</term><term>Implant system</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International journal</term><term>John wiley sons</term><term>Jung</term><term>Lateral ridge augmentation</term><term>Mandibular premolars</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Membrane</term><term>Membrane exposure</term><term>Membrane group</term><term>Membrane membrane</term><term>Negative control</term><term>Negative values</term><term>Novel membrane</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Outer surface</term><term>Plga</term><term>Plga membrane</term><term>Positive control</term><term>Positive values</term><term>Present study</term><term>Quantitative information</term><term>Ranks test</term><term>Regenerated</term><term>Regenerated bone</term><term>Regeneration</term><term>Regenerative surgery</term><term>Removable prosthodontics</term><term>Resorbable</term><term>Resorbable collagen membrane</term><term>Resorbable trimethylene tacks</term><term>Restorative dentistry</term><term>Statistical analysis</term><term>Sterile saline solution</term><term>Surgical procedure</term><term>Surgical procedures</term><term>Tenting effect</term><term>Third thread</term><term>Tooth extraction</term><term>Treatment modalities</term><term>Weber</term><term>Wisdom teeth</term><term>Worse outcome</term><term>Wound closure</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare a newly developed biodegradable polylactide/polyglycolide/N‐methyl‐2‐pyrrolidone (PLGA/NMP) membrane with a standard resorbable collagen membrane (RCM) in combination with and without the use of a bone substitute material (deproteinized bovine bone mineral [DBBM]) looking at the proposed tenting effect and bone regeneration.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>dbbm</json:string><json:string>bone regeneration</json:string><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>bone substitute material</json:string><json:string>regeneration</json:string><json:string>jung</json:string><json:string>resorbable</json:string><json:string>graft material</json:string><json:string>membrane</json:string><json:string>regenerated</json:string><json:string>regenerated bone</json:string><json:string>implant shoulder</json:string><json:string>plga</json:string><json:string>bioresorbable</json:string><json:string>buccal</json:string><json:string>deproteinized</json:string><json:string>implants research</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>defect</json:string><json:string>graft</json:string><json:string>john wiley sons</json:string><json:string>bone formation</json:string><json:string>bone mineral</json:string><json:string>oral impl</json:string><json:string>third thread</json:string><json:string>horizontal bone gain</json:string><json:string>outer surface</json:string><json:string>bone tissue</json:string><json:string>tenting effect</json:string><json:string>comparative study</json:string><json:string>horizontal extension</json:string><json:string>regenerative surgery</json:string><json:string>bony defects</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>statistical analysis</json:string><json:string>positive values</json:string><json:string>experimental study</json:string><json:string>buccal aspect</json:string><json:string>tooth extraction</json:string><json:string>clinical trial</json:string><json:string>surgical procedures</json:string><json:string>restorative dentistry</json:string><json:string>collagen membrane</json:string><json:string>negative control</json:string><json:string>positive control</json:string><json:string>lateral ridge augmentation</json:string><json:string>histomorphometric analysis</json:string><json:string>biodegradable membrane</json:string><json:string>treatment modalities</json:string><json:string>membrane membrane</json:string><json:string>sterile saline solution</json:string><json:string>friedman test</json:string><json:string>defect margins</json:string><json:string>resorbable trimethylene tacks</json:string><json:string>ranks test</json:string><json:string>bioresorbable membranes</json:string><json:string>clinical photographs</json:string><json:string>worse outcome</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial surgery</json:string><json:string>adult german sheepdogs</json:string><json:string>mandibular premolars</json:string><json:string>highest contact</json:string><json:string>buccal side</json:string><json:string>negative values</json:string><json:string>membrane exposure</json:string><json:string>removable prosthodontics</json:string><json:string>quantitative information</json:string><json:string>plga membrane</json:string><json:string>resorbable collagen membrane</json:string><json:string>good bone regeneration</json:string><json:string>membrane group</json:string><json:string>barrier function</json:string><json:string>highest bone tissue level</json:string><json:string>corresponding groups</json:string><json:string>implant system</json:string><json:string>novel membrane</json:string><json:string>defect size</json:string><json:string>extraction sockets</json:string><json:string>wisdom teeth</json:string><json:string>healing period</json:string><json:string>bony walls</json:string><json:string>dental material science</json:string><json:string>bone density</json:string><json:string>implant placement</json:string><json:string>surgical procedure</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>wound closure</json:string><json:string>weber</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Ronald E. Jung</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Dental School, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Vladimir Kokovic</name><affiliations><json:string>Clinic of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Milan Jurisic</name><affiliations><json:string>Clinic of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Duygu Yaman</name><affiliations><json:string>School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Karthikeyan Subramani</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Dental School, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Franz E. Weber</name><affiliations><json:string>Oral Biotechnology & Bioengineering, Department of Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dog study</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>guided bone regeneration</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>PLGA membrane</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR2068</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-G1W4SCBD-H</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare a newly developed biodegradable polylactide/polyglycolide/N‐methyl‐2‐pyrrolidone (PLGA/NMP) membrane with a standard resorbable collagen membrane (RCM) in combination with and without the use of a bone substitute material (deproteinized bovine bone mineral [DBBM]) looking at the proposed tenting effect and bone regeneration.</abstract><qualityIndicators><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>50</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>382</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>3</keywordCount><score>7.158</score><pdfWordCount>4558</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>28999</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>6</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize></qualityIndicators><title>Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane: a comparative study in dogs</title><pmid><json:string>21198905</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0905-7161</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1600-0501</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CLR</json:string></publisherId><volume>22</volume><issue>8</issue><pages><first>802</first><last>807</last><total>6</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2011</json:string><json:string>2010</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>University of Belgrade, Serbia</json:string><json:string>SPSS Inc., Chicago</json:string><json:string>Jung Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics</json:string><json:string>Dental Material Science Dental School University</json:string><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey Franz E</json:string><json:string>University of Zurich</json:string><json:string>Oral Biotechnology</json:string><json:string>AG</json:string><json:string>Zurich Switzerland Tel</json:string><json:string>Switzerland Vladimir Kokovic, Milan Jurisic, Clinic of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia Duygu Y</json:string><json:string>University of Belgrade</json:string><json:string>Oy</json:string><json:string>Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland Corresponding</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>J. Fierz</json:string><json:string>John Wiley</json:string><json:string>Ronald E. Jung</json:string><json:string>W. L. Gore</json:string><json:string>A. Tchouboukov</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>Finland</json:string><json:string>Basel</json:string><json:string>Zurich</json:string><json:string>Tampere</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Owens & Yukna 2001</json:string><json:string>Simion et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Miguel et al. 2009</json:string><json:string>Schenk et al. 1984</json:string><json:string>Cornelini et al. 2004</json:string><json:string>Zwahlen et al. 2009</json:string><json:string>Hammerle et al. 2008</json:string><json:string>Gher et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Hammerle & Lang 2001</json:string><json:string>Kohal et al. 1999</json:string><json:string>Parodi et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Zhao et al. 2000</json:string><json:string>Jung et al. 2003</json:string><json:string>Lang et al. 2007</json:string><json:string>Weibel et al. 1966</json:string><json:string>Gundersen et al. 1988</json:string><json:string>Miller et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Jung et al</json:string><json:string>Machtei 2001</json:string><json:string>Jung et al. 2007</json:string><json:string>Rosen & Reynolds 2001</json:string><json:string>Hurzeler et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Kohal & Hurzeler 2002</json:string><json:string>Pirhonen et al. 2006</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-G1W4SCBD-H</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - engineering, biomedical</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2011</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2011</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02068.x</json:string></doi><id>BAA57CC9E2A311C5EC018E821191B8068FA5FB0D</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/BAA57CC9E2A311C5EC018E821191B8068FA5FB0D/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/BAA57CC9E2A311C5EC018E821191B8068FA5FB0D/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/BAA57CC9E2A311C5EC018E821191B8068FA5FB0D/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane: a comparative study in dogs</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2011-08"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane: a comparative study in dogs</title><title level="a" type="short">Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Ronald E.</forename><surname>Jung</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Dental School, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland<address><country key="CH"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Vladimir</forename><surname>Kokovic</surname></persName><affiliation>Clinic of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia<address><country key="RS"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Milan</forename><surname>Jurisic</surname></persName><affiliation>Clinic of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia<address><country key="RS"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Duygu</forename><surname>Yaman</surname></persName><affiliation>School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey<address><country key="TR"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">Karthikeyan</forename><surname>Subramani</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Dental School, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland<address><country key="CH"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0005"><persName><forename type="first">Franz E.</forename><surname>Weber</surname></persName><affiliation>Oral Biotechnology & Bioengineering, Department of Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland<address><country key="CH"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">BAA57CC9E2A311C5EC018E821191B8068FA5FB0D</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-G1W4SCBD-H</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02068.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR2068</idno><idno type="supplier">2068</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR2068.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/clr.2011.22.issue-8</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">22</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">8</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="802">802</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="807">807</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011-08"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>Abstract</head><p><hi rend="bold">Objectives: </hi> The aim of the present study was to compare a newly developed biodegradable polylactide/polyglycolide/<hi rend="italic">N</hi>‐methyl‐2‐pyrrolidone (PLGA/NMP) membrane with a standard resorbable collagen membrane (RCM) in combination with and without the use of a bone substitute material (deproteinized bovine bone mineral [DBBM]) looking at the proposed tenting effect and bone regeneration.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Materials and methods: </hi> In five adult German sheepdogs, the mandibular premolars P2, P3, P4, and the molar M1 were bilaterally extracted creating two bony defects on each site. A total of 20 dental implants were inserted and allocated to four different treatment modalities within each dog: PLGA/NMP membrane only (Test 1), PLGA/NMP membrane with DBBM (Test 2), RCM only (negative control), and RCM with DBBM (positive control). A histomorphometric analysis was performed 12 weeks after implantation. For statistical analysis, a Friedman test and subsequently a Wilcoxon signed ranks test were applied.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Results: </hi> In four out of five PLGA/NMP membrane‐treated defects, the membranes had broken into pieces without the support of DBBM. This led to a worse outcome than in the RCM group. In combination with DBBM, both membranes revealed similar amounts of area of bone regeneration and bone‐to‐implant contact without significant differences. On the level of the third implant thread, the PLGA/NMP membrane induced more horizontal bone formation beyond the graft than the RCM.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Conclusion: </hi> The newly developed PLGA/NMP membrane performs equally well as the RCM when applied in combination with DBBM. Without bone substitute material, the PLGA/NMP membrane performed worse than the RCM in challenging defects, and therefore, a combination with a bone substitute material is recommended.</p><p>
<hi rend="bold">To cite this article:</hi>
Jung RE, Kokovic V, Jurisic M, Yaman D, Subramani K, Weber FE. Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane: a comparative study in dogs.
<hi rend="italic">Clin. Oral Impl. Res</hi>. <hi rend="bold">22</hi>, 2011; 802–807
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.02068.x</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">dog study</term><term xml:id="k2">guided bone regeneration</term><term xml:id="k3">PLGA membrane</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/BAA57CC9E2A311C5EC018E821191B8068FA5FB0D/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</doi><issn type="print">0905-7161</issn><issn type="electronic">1600-0501</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CLR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="08108"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2011.22.issue-8</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="22">22</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="8">8</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2011-08">August 2011</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="3" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02068.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR2068"></id><id type="supplier" value="2068"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="6"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.5.2 mode:FullText" date="2011-07-11"></event><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2010-12-28"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2010-12-28"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2011-07-11"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-12"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="802">802</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="807">807</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo><b>Corresponding author:</b>
<i>Ronald E. Jung</i>
Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science
Dental School
University of Zurich
Plattenstrasse 11
CH‐8032 Zurich
Switzerland
Tel.:+41 44 634 32 52
Fax:+41 44 634 43 05
e‐mail: <email normalForm="ronald.jung@zzmk.uzh.ch">ronald.jung@zzmk.uzh.ch</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR2068.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory><b>Date:</b> , Accepted ▪▪▪</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="6"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="1"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="25"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="5599"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="35"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane: a comparative study in dogs</title><title type="shortAuthors">Jung et al.</title><title type="short">Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Ronald E.</givenNames><familyName>Jung</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Vladimir</givenNames><familyName>Kokovic</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Milan</givenNames><familyName>Jurisic</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>Duygu</givenNames><familyName>Yaman</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Karthikeyan</givenNames><familyName>Subramani</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr6" affiliationRef="#a4"><personName><givenNames>Franz E.</givenNames><familyName>Weber</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="CH"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Dental School, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="RS"><unparsedAffiliation>Clinic of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="TR"><unparsedAffiliation>School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a4" countryCode="CH"><unparsedAffiliation>Oral Biotechnology & Bioengineering, Department of Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">dog study</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">guided bone regeneration</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">PLGA membrane</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p><b>Objectives: </b> The aim of the present study was to compare a newly developed biodegradable polylactide/polyglycolide/<i>N</i>‐methyl‐2‐pyrrolidone (PLGA/NMP) membrane with a standard resorbable collagen membrane (RCM) in combination with and without the use of a bone substitute material (deproteinized bovine bone mineral [DBBM]) looking at the proposed tenting effect and bone regeneration.</p><p><b>Materials and methods: </b> In five adult German sheepdogs, the mandibular premolars P2, P3, P4, and the molar M1 were bilaterally extracted creating two bony defects on each site. A total of 20 dental implants were inserted and allocated to four different treatment modalities within each dog: PLGA/NMP membrane only (Test 1), PLGA/NMP membrane with DBBM (Test 2), RCM only (negative control), and RCM with DBBM (positive control). A histomorphometric analysis was performed 12 weeks after implantation. For statistical analysis, a Friedman test and subsequently a Wilcoxon signed ranks test were applied.</p><p><b>Results: </b> In four out of five PLGA/NMP membrane‐treated defects, the membranes had broken into pieces without the support of DBBM. This led to a worse outcome than in the RCM group. In combination with DBBM, both membranes revealed similar amounts of area of bone regeneration and bone‐to‐implant contact without significant differences. On the level of the third implant thread, the PLGA/NMP membrane induced more horizontal bone formation beyond the graft than the RCM.</p><p><b>Conclusion: </b> The newly developed PLGA/NMP membrane performs equally well as the RCM when applied in combination with DBBM. Without bone substitute material, the PLGA/NMP membrane performed worse than the RCM in challenging defects, and therefore, a combination with a bone substitute material is recommended.</p><p> <b>To cite this article:</b>
Jung RE, Kokovic V, Jurisic M, Yaman D, Subramani K, Weber FE. Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane: a comparative study in dogs.
<i>Clin. Oral Impl. Res</i>. <b>22</b>, 2011; 802–807
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.02068.x</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane: a comparative study in dogs</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane: a comparative study in dogs</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ronald E.</namePart><namePart type="family">Jung</namePart><affiliation>Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Dental School, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Vladimir</namePart><namePart type="family">Kokovic</namePart><affiliation>Clinic of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Milan</namePart><namePart type="family">Jurisic</namePart><affiliation>Clinic of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Duygu</namePart><namePart type="family">Yaman</namePart><affiliation>School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Karthikeyan</namePart><namePart type="family">Subramani</namePart><affiliation>Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Dental School, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Franz E.</namePart><namePart type="family">Weber</namePart><affiliation>Oral Biotechnology & Bioengineering, Department of Cranio‐Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2011-08</dateIssued><edition>Date: , Accepted ▪▪▪</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">6</extent><extent unit="tables">1</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">25</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">35</extent><extent unit="words">5599</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare a newly developed biodegradable polylactide/polyglycolide/N‐methyl‐2‐pyrrolidone (PLGA/NMP) membrane with a standard resorbable collagen membrane (RCM) in combination with and without the use of a bone substitute material (deproteinized bovine bone mineral [DBBM]) looking at the proposed tenting effect and bone regeneration.</abstract><abstract>Materials and methods: In five adult German sheepdogs, the mandibular premolars P2, P3, P4, and the molar M1 were bilaterally extracted creating two bony defects on each site. A total of 20 dental implants were inserted and allocated to four different treatment modalities within each dog: PLGA/NMP membrane only (Test 1), PLGA/NMP membrane with DBBM (Test 2), RCM only (negative control), and RCM with DBBM (positive control). A histomorphometric analysis was performed 12 weeks after implantation. For statistical analysis, a Friedman test and subsequently a Wilcoxon signed ranks test were applied.</abstract><abstract>Results: In four out of five PLGA/NMP membrane‐treated defects, the membranes had broken into pieces without the support of DBBM. This led to a worse outcome than in the RCM group. In combination with DBBM, both membranes revealed similar amounts of area of bone regeneration and bone‐to‐implant contact without significant differences. On the level of the third implant thread, the PLGA/NMP membrane induced more horizontal bone formation beyond the graft than the RCM.</abstract><abstract>Conclusion: The newly developed PLGA/NMP membrane performs equally well as the RCM when applied in combination with DBBM. Without bone substitute material, the PLGA/NMP membrane performed worse than the RCM in challenging defects, and therefore, a combination with a bone substitute material is recommended.</abstract><abstract>To cite this article:
Jung RE, Kokovic V, Jurisic M, Yaman D, Subramani K, Weber FE. Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane: a comparative study in dogs.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 22, 2011; 802–807
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.02068.x</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>dog study</topic><topic>guided bone regeneration</topic><topic>PLGA membrane</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0905-7161</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CLR</identifier><part><date>2011</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>22</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>8</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>802</start><end>807</end><total>6</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">BAA57CC9E2A311C5EC018E821191B8068FA5FB0D</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-G1W4SCBD-H</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02068.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR2068</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/BAA57CC9E2A311C5EC018E821191B8068FA5FB0D/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 005C93 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 005C93 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:BAA57CC9E2A311C5EC018E821191B8068FA5FB0D
|texte= Guided bone regeneration with a synthetic biodegradable membrane: a comparative study in dogs
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |