Guided bone regeneration utilizing expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes in combination with submerged and nonsubmerged dental implants in beagle dogs

Joseph P. Fiorellini, Steven Engebretson, Karl Donath, Hans Peter Weber

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

TREATMENT OF PARTIAL AND TOTAL EDENTULISM with submerged and nonsubmerged dental implants which follows the concept of osseointegration has become an accepted treatment modality. With compromised implant sites, practitioners have begun to combine one-stage implants with established techniques including guided bone regeneration. However, the clinical evaluation of this technique is limited. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate osseointegration and bone regeneration around nonsubmerged or submerged implants placed directly into surgically created osseous defects with or without expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membranes. A total of 24 implants were placed in the mandibles of 4 beagle dogs and randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups. In group A, nonsubmerged implants were placed into osseous defects and treated with a poncho style ePTFE membrane. These membranes had a hole punched into the center and were slipped over the nonsubmerged implants. In group B, nonsubmerged implants were placed into osseous defects without an ePTFE membrane. In group C, submerged implants were placed into osseous defects and covered with an ePTFE membrane. Histometric measurements of each treatment group were made to determine percent bone gain or loss along the implant surface. Although a number of membrane removals occurred during the healing period, histological analysis indicated osseous ingrowth and osseointegration around nonsubmerged and submerged implants. An overall comparison of the treatment groups with ANOVA revealed that there were no significant differences between treatment groups, P ≤0.05. However, when the data were stratified into sites which retained or lost the ePTFE membrane, the percent of bone regeneration was reduced in group A. Therefore, it may be recommended that nonsubmerged implants be placed with a submerged or 'semi-submerged' protocol when utilized in conjunction with ePTFE membranes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)528-535
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Periodontology
Volume69
Issue number5
StatePublished - 1998

Fingerprint

Bone Regeneration
Dental Implants
Polytetrafluoroethylene
Dogs
Membranes
Osseointegration
Mandible
Analysis of Variance
Demography
Bone and Bones

Keywords

  • Animal studies
  • Dental implants
  • Guided bone regeneration
  • Membranes, artificial
  • Membranes, barrier
  • Osseointergration
  • Polytetrafluoroethylene/therapeutic use

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Guided bone regeneration utilizing expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes in combination with submerged and nonsubmerged dental implants in beagle dogs. / Fiorellini, Joseph P.; Engebretson, Steven; Donath, Karl; Weber, Hans Peter.

In: Journal of Periodontology, Vol. 69, No. 5, 1998, p. 528-535.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3fdbc94da543405d9d44260bb7483dd6,
title = "Guided bone regeneration utilizing expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes in combination with submerged and nonsubmerged dental implants in beagle dogs",
abstract = "TREATMENT OF PARTIAL AND TOTAL EDENTULISM with submerged and nonsubmerged dental implants which follows the concept of osseointegration has become an accepted treatment modality. With compromised implant sites, practitioners have begun to combine one-stage implants with established techniques including guided bone regeneration. However, the clinical evaluation of this technique is limited. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate osseointegration and bone regeneration around nonsubmerged or submerged implants placed directly into surgically created osseous defects with or without expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membranes. A total of 24 implants were placed in the mandibles of 4 beagle dogs and randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups. In group A, nonsubmerged implants were placed into osseous defects and treated with a poncho style ePTFE membrane. These membranes had a hole punched into the center and were slipped over the nonsubmerged implants. In group B, nonsubmerged implants were placed into osseous defects without an ePTFE membrane. In group C, submerged implants were placed into osseous defects and covered with an ePTFE membrane. Histometric measurements of each treatment group were made to determine percent bone gain or loss along the implant surface. Although a number of membrane removals occurred during the healing period, histological analysis indicated osseous ingrowth and osseointegration around nonsubmerged and submerged implants. An overall comparison of the treatment groups with ANOVA revealed that there were no significant differences between treatment groups, P ≤0.05. However, when the data were stratified into sites which retained or lost the ePTFE membrane, the percent of bone regeneration was reduced in group A. Therefore, it may be recommended that nonsubmerged implants be placed with a submerged or 'semi-submerged' protocol when utilized in conjunction with ePTFE membranes.",
keywords = "Animal studies, Dental implants, Guided bone regeneration, Membranes, artificial, Membranes, barrier, Osseointergration, Polytetrafluoroethylene/therapeutic use",
author = "Fiorellini, {Joseph P.} and Steven Engebretson and Karl Donath and Weber, {Hans Peter}",
year = "1998",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "69",
pages = "528--535",
journal = "Journal of Periodontology",
issn = "0022-3492",
publisher = "American Academy of Periodontology",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Guided bone regeneration utilizing expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes in combination with submerged and nonsubmerged dental implants in beagle dogs

AU - Fiorellini, Joseph P.

AU - Engebretson, Steven

AU - Donath, Karl

AU - Weber, Hans Peter

PY - 1998

Y1 - 1998

N2 - TREATMENT OF PARTIAL AND TOTAL EDENTULISM with submerged and nonsubmerged dental implants which follows the concept of osseointegration has become an accepted treatment modality. With compromised implant sites, practitioners have begun to combine one-stage implants with established techniques including guided bone regeneration. However, the clinical evaluation of this technique is limited. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate osseointegration and bone regeneration around nonsubmerged or submerged implants placed directly into surgically created osseous defects with or without expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membranes. A total of 24 implants were placed in the mandibles of 4 beagle dogs and randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups. In group A, nonsubmerged implants were placed into osseous defects and treated with a poncho style ePTFE membrane. These membranes had a hole punched into the center and were slipped over the nonsubmerged implants. In group B, nonsubmerged implants were placed into osseous defects without an ePTFE membrane. In group C, submerged implants were placed into osseous defects and covered with an ePTFE membrane. Histometric measurements of each treatment group were made to determine percent bone gain or loss along the implant surface. Although a number of membrane removals occurred during the healing period, histological analysis indicated osseous ingrowth and osseointegration around nonsubmerged and submerged implants. An overall comparison of the treatment groups with ANOVA revealed that there were no significant differences between treatment groups, P ≤0.05. However, when the data were stratified into sites which retained or lost the ePTFE membrane, the percent of bone regeneration was reduced in group A. Therefore, it may be recommended that nonsubmerged implants be placed with a submerged or 'semi-submerged' protocol when utilized in conjunction with ePTFE membranes.

AB - TREATMENT OF PARTIAL AND TOTAL EDENTULISM with submerged and nonsubmerged dental implants which follows the concept of osseointegration has become an accepted treatment modality. With compromised implant sites, practitioners have begun to combine one-stage implants with established techniques including guided bone regeneration. However, the clinical evaluation of this technique is limited. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate osseointegration and bone regeneration around nonsubmerged or submerged implants placed directly into surgically created osseous defects with or without expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membranes. A total of 24 implants were placed in the mandibles of 4 beagle dogs and randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups. In group A, nonsubmerged implants were placed into osseous defects and treated with a poncho style ePTFE membrane. These membranes had a hole punched into the center and were slipped over the nonsubmerged implants. In group B, nonsubmerged implants were placed into osseous defects without an ePTFE membrane. In group C, submerged implants were placed into osseous defects and covered with an ePTFE membrane. Histometric measurements of each treatment group were made to determine percent bone gain or loss along the implant surface. Although a number of membrane removals occurred during the healing period, histological analysis indicated osseous ingrowth and osseointegration around nonsubmerged and submerged implants. An overall comparison of the treatment groups with ANOVA revealed that there were no significant differences between treatment groups, P ≤0.05. However, when the data were stratified into sites which retained or lost the ePTFE membrane, the percent of bone regeneration was reduced in group A. Therefore, it may be recommended that nonsubmerged implants be placed with a submerged or 'semi-submerged' protocol when utilized in conjunction with ePTFE membranes.

KW - Animal studies

KW - Dental implants

KW - Guided bone regeneration

KW - Membranes, artificial

KW - Membranes, barrier

KW - Osseointergration

KW - Polytetrafluoroethylene/therapeutic use

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031832073&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031832073&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 9623895

AN - SCOPUS:0031832073

VL - 69

SP - 528

EP - 535

JO - Journal of Periodontology

JF - Journal of Periodontology

SN - 0022-3492

IS - 5

ER -