TY - JOUR
T1 - Bone regenerative potential of enamel matrix protein in the circumferential defect around a dental implant
AU - Lim, Hyun Chang
AU - Lee, Jung Seok
AU - Jung, Ui Won
AU - Choi, Seong Ho
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2016/4/13
Y1 - 2016/4/13
N2 - Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the bone regenerative potential of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in a defect around a dental implant. Materials and Methods: Five mongrel dogs were used. A circumferential defect was created around osteotomies that had been fabricated to receive titanium implants. The defects were treated with EMD, biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP), a mixture of EMD and BCP (EBCP), or blood coagulum (control). Results: In general, the amount of new bone formation, the mostcoronal level of bone-implant contact, defect fill, and bone-implant contact ratio were greater in the EMD group than in the control group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. The EBCP group yielded no beneficial effect in new bone formation. Histologically, there was no notable difference in healing pattern between the EMD group and the control, and the EBCP and the BCP group. Few of the specimens in the EMD and EBCP groups exhibited remarkable bone regeneration. Conclusions: Neither EMD alone nor a mixture of BCP and EMD enhanced bone healing in a circumferential gap defect around a dental implant.
AB - Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the bone regenerative potential of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in a defect around a dental implant. Materials and Methods: Five mongrel dogs were used. A circumferential defect was created around osteotomies that had been fabricated to receive titanium implants. The defects were treated with EMD, biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP), a mixture of EMD and BCP (EBCP), or blood coagulum (control). Results: In general, the amount of new bone formation, the mostcoronal level of bone-implant contact, defect fill, and bone-implant contact ratio were greater in the EMD group than in the control group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. The EBCP group yielded no beneficial effect in new bone formation. Histologically, there was no notable difference in healing pattern between the EMD group and the control, and the EBCP and the BCP group. Few of the specimens in the EMD and EBCP groups exhibited remarkable bone regeneration. Conclusions: Neither EMD alone nor a mixture of BCP and EMD enhanced bone healing in a circumferential gap defect around a dental implant.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962367235&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84962367235&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/ID.0000000000000383
DO - 10.1097/ID.0000000000000383
M3 - Article
C2 - 26836128
AN - SCOPUS:84962367235
SN - 1056-6163
VL - 25
SP - 179
EP - 185
JO - The International journal of oral implantology : implantologist
JF - The International journal of oral implantology : implantologist
IS - 2
ER -