Particles versus solid forms of hydroxyapatite as a treatment modality to preserve residual alveolar ridges.
Identifieur interne : 004597 ( PubMed/Checkpoint ); précédent : 004596; suivant : 004598Particles versus solid forms of hydroxyapatite as a treatment modality to preserve residual alveolar ridges.
Auteurs : D H BellSource :
- The Journal of prosthetic dentistry [ 0022-3913 ] ; 1986.
Descripteurs français
- KwdFr :
- MESH :
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- MESH :
- chemical : Durapatite, Hydroxyapatites.
- methods : Alveoloplasty.
- prevention & control : Bone Resorption, Jaw Diseases.
- surgery : Jaw, Edentulous.
- Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Particle Size, Prostheses and Implants, Time Factors.
Abstract
In two separate but related studies, different forms of hydroxyapatite were implanted into the extraction sockets of human teeth to delay alveolar resorption and to form the background for a comparison of the treatment modalities. The significant differences in the treatment modalities and the postoperative sequelae seem to merit this report. The implantation of the particles appears to be clinically, a more expedient procedure than the implantation of cones. The time required to select an appropriate-sized cone, modify the cone as needed to achieve a snug fit into the extraction socket, and seat the cone deeply enough in the extraction socket to assure at least 2 mm of bone above the top of the cone implant was significantly greater than the time required to fit and pack particles into an extraction socket. None of the postimplantation problems encountered with cones was encountered in using the particle implants. The postimplantation problems encountered with cones included submucosal prominence, erosion through the mucosa (dehiscence), migration, loss of the implant, or surgical maintenance or resubmergence. Data from these two studies suggest that the implantation of particles into the extraction sockets of human teeth to delay alveolar ridge resorption is a more prudent, forgiving, considerate, problem-free, and predictable procedure than the implantation of cones.
PubMed: 3018236
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:3018236Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Particles versus solid forms of hydroxyapatite as a treatment modality to preserve residual alveolar ridges.</title><author><name sortKey="Bell, D H" sort="Bell, D H" uniqKey="Bell D" first="D H" last="Bell">D H Bell</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="1986">1986</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:3018236</idno><idno type="pmid">3018236</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">005301</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">005301</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Curation">005301</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Curation">005301</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Checkpoint">005301</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Checkpoint" wicri:step="PubMed">005301</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Particles versus solid forms of hydroxyapatite as a treatment modality to preserve residual alveolar ridges.</title><author><name sortKey="Bell, D H" sort="Bell, D H" uniqKey="Bell D" first="D H" last="Bell">D H Bell</name></author></analytic><series><title level="j">The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</title><idno type="ISSN">0022-3913</idno><imprint><date when="1986" type="published">1986</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Adult</term><term>Alveoloplasty (methods)</term><term>Bone Resorption (prevention & control)</term><term>Durapatite</term><term>Female</term><term>Humans</term><term>Hydroxyapatites</term><term>Jaw Diseases (prevention & control)</term><term>Jaw, Edentulous (surgery)</term><term>Male</term><term>Middle Aged</term><term>Particle Size</term><term>Prostheses and Implants</term><term>Time Factors</term></keywords><keywords scheme="KwdFr" xml:lang="fr"><term>Adulte</term><term>Adulte d'âge moyen</term><term>Alvéoloplastie ()</term><term>Durapatite</term><term>Facteurs temps</term><term>Femelle</term><term>Humains</term><term>Hydroxyapatites</term><term>Maladies de la mâchoire ()</term><term>Mâchoire édentée ()</term><term>Mâle</term><term>Prothèses et implants</term><term>Résorption osseuse ()</term><term>Taille de particule</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" type="chemical" xml:lang="en"><term>Durapatite</term><term>Hydroxyapatites</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="methods" xml:lang="en"><term>Alveoloplasty</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="prevention & control" xml:lang="en"><term>Bone Resorption</term><term>Jaw Diseases</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="surgery" xml:lang="en"><term>Jaw, Edentulous</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Adult</term><term>Female</term><term>Humans</term><term>Male</term><term>Middle Aged</term><term>Particle Size</term><term>Prostheses and Implants</term><term>Time Factors</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="fr"><term>Adulte</term><term>Adulte d'âge moyen</term><term>Alvéoloplastie</term><term>Durapatite</term><term>Facteurs temps</term><term>Femelle</term><term>Humains</term><term>Hydroxyapatites</term><term>Maladies de la mâchoire</term><term>Mâchoire édentée</term><term>Mâle</term><term>Prothèses et implants</term><term>Résorption osseuse</term><term>Taille de particule</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">In two separate but related studies, different forms of hydroxyapatite were implanted into the extraction sockets of human teeth to delay alveolar resorption and to form the background for a comparison of the treatment modalities. The significant differences in the treatment modalities and the postoperative sequelae seem to merit this report. The implantation of the particles appears to be clinically, a more expedient procedure than the implantation of cones. The time required to select an appropriate-sized cone, modify the cone as needed to achieve a snug fit into the extraction socket, and seat the cone deeply enough in the extraction socket to assure at least 2 mm of bone above the top of the cone implant was significantly greater than the time required to fit and pack particles into an extraction socket. None of the postimplantation problems encountered with cones was encountered in using the particle implants. The postimplantation problems encountered with cones included submucosal prominence, erosion through the mucosa (dehiscence), migration, loss of the implant, or surgical maintenance or resubmergence. Data from these two studies suggest that the implantation of particles into the extraction sockets of human teeth to delay alveolar ridge resorption is a more prudent, forgiving, considerate, problem-free, and predictable procedure than the implantation of cones.</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">3018236</PMID><DateCompleted><Year>1986</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>21</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2013</Year><Month>11</Month><Day>21</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Print"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Print">0022-3913</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Print"><Volume>56</Volume><Issue>3</Issue><PubDate><Year>1986</Year><Month>Sep</Month></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</Title><ISOAbbreviation>J Prosthet Dent</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Particles versus solid forms of hydroxyapatite as a treatment modality to preserve residual alveolar ridges.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>322-6</MedlinePgn></Pagination><Abstract><AbstractText>In two separate but related studies, different forms of hydroxyapatite were implanted into the extraction sockets of human teeth to delay alveolar resorption and to form the background for a comparison of the treatment modalities. The significant differences in the treatment modalities and the postoperative sequelae seem to merit this report. The implantation of the particles appears to be clinically, a more expedient procedure than the implantation of cones. The time required to select an appropriate-sized cone, modify the cone as needed to achieve a snug fit into the extraction socket, and seat the cone deeply enough in the extraction socket to assure at least 2 mm of bone above the top of the cone implant was significantly greater than the time required to fit and pack particles into an extraction socket. None of the postimplantation problems encountered with cones was encountered in using the particle implants. The postimplantation problems encountered with cones included submucosal prominence, erosion through the mucosa (dehiscence), migration, loss of the implant, or surgical maintenance or resubmergence. Data from these two studies suggest that the implantation of particles into the extraction sockets of human teeth to delay alveolar ridge resorption is a more prudent, forgiving, considerate, problem-free, and predictable procedure than the implantation of cones.</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Bell</LastName><ForeName>D H</ForeName><Initials>DH</Initials><Suffix>Jr</Suffix></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D003160">Comparative Study</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D013485">Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>United States</Country><MedlineTA>J Prosthet Dent</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>0376364</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>0022-3913</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><ChemicalList><Chemical><RegistryNumber>0</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="D006882">Hydroxyapatites</NameOfSubstance></Chemical><Chemical><RegistryNumber>91D9GV0Z28</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="D017886">Durapatite</NameOfSubstance></Chemical></ChemicalList><CitationSubset>D</CitationSubset><CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000328" MajorTopicYN="N">Adult</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000543" MajorTopicYN="N">Alveoloplasty</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="Y">methods</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D001862" MajorTopicYN="N">Bone Resorption</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000517" MajorTopicYN="Y">prevention & control</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D017886" MajorTopicYN="N">Durapatite</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005260" MajorTopicYN="N">Female</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006882" MajorTopicYN="Y">Hydroxyapatites</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D007571" MajorTopicYN="N">Jaw Diseases</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000517" MajorTopicYN="N">prevention & control</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D007575" MajorTopicYN="N">Jaw, Edentulous</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000601" MajorTopicYN="N">surgery</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008297" MajorTopicYN="N">Male</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008875" MajorTopicYN="N">Middle Aged</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D010316" MajorTopicYN="N">Particle Size</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D019736" MajorTopicYN="Y">Prostheses and Implants</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D013997" MajorTopicYN="N">Time Factors</DescriptorName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>1986</Year><Month>9</Month><Day>1</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2001</Year><Month>3</Month><Day>28</Day><Hour>10</Hour><Minute>1</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>1986</Year><Month>9</Month><Day>1</Day><Hour>0</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">3018236</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></PubmedData></pubmed><affiliations><list></list><tree><noCountry><name sortKey="Bell, D H" sort="Bell, D H" uniqKey="Bell D" first="D H" last="Bell">D H Bell</name></noCountry></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 004597 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint/biblio.hfd -nk 004597 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= PubMed
|étape= Checkpoint
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:3018236
|texte= Particles versus solid forms of hydroxyapatite as a treatment modality to preserve residual alveolar ridges.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:3018236" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Checkpoint/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a EdenteV2
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |