치근단 병소를 갖는 발치와에 즉시 임플란트 식립 시 비흡수성 차폐막이 치조골의 흡수에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구 = The effect of non-resorbable barrier membrane on the change of buccal and lingual alveolar bone in immediate implant placement into periapically infected extraction sockets

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Purpose: Many researches showed loss of alveolar bone in fresh extraction socket and even in case of immediate implant placement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of non-resorbable barrier membrane on the change of buccal and lingual alveolar bone in immediate implant placement into periapically infected extraction sockets. Materials and methods: Immediate implants were placed into artificially induced periapical lesion of mandibular premolars after complete debridement using buccal bone defect made by a 6mm trephine bur in 4 mongrel dogs. Before flap repositioning, a non-resorbable barrier membrane was placed on the buccal defect in the experimental group. No membrane was placed in the control group. In 12 weeks after placement, the dogs were sacrificed and undecalcified histologic specimens were prepared. The vertical distance from the smooth-rough surface interface(SRI) to gingiva, 1st bone contact and bone crest were measured in buccal and lingual side. The horizontal thicknesses of gingiva and bone at 0, 1, 2 and 3mm below SRI were measured. Results: The buccal bone was resorbed more than lingual bone in both groups and there was statistical significance(p<0.05). The distances from SRI to 1st bone contact were $2.45{\pm}2.35\;mm$ in experimental group and $4.49{\pm}3.10\;mm$ in control group. In all vertical level, lingual bone was thicker than buccal bone(p<0.05). Conclusion: Buccal bone was reduced more than lingual bone in immediate implant placement into periapically infected extraction sockets. Placement of non-resorbable barrier membrane reduced the buccal bone resorption. However there was no statistical significance.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박주희, "탈회동결건조골이 수직골 형성에 미치는 영향" 대한치주과학회 38 (38): 75-82, 2008

2 Araujo MG, "Ridge alterations following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in the dog" 32 : 645-652, 2005

3 Bahat O, "Preservation of ridges utilizing hydroxyapatite" 7 : 34-41, 1987

4 Paolantonio M, "Immediate implantation in fresh extraction sockets. A controlled clinical and histological study in man" 72 : 1560-1571, 2001

5 Chang SW, "Immediate implant placement into infected and noninfected extraction sockets: a pilot study" 107 : 197-203, 2009

6 Carlsson GE, "Histologic changes in the upper alveolar process after extractions with or without insertion of an immediate full denture" 25 : 21-43, 1967

7 Botticelli D, "Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites" 31 : 820-828, 2004

8 Fickl S, "Hard tissue alterations after socket preservation: an experimental study in the beagle dog" 19 : 1111-1118, 2008

9 Lorenzoni M, "Evaluation of implants placed with barrier membranes. A restrospective follow-up study up to five years" 13 : 274-280, 2002

10 Cardaropoli G, "Dynamics of bone tissue formation in tooth extraction sites. An experimental study in dogs" 30 : 809-818, 2003

11 Seibert JS, "Alveolar ridge preservation and reconstruction" 11 : 69-84, 1996

12 Nevins M, "A study of the fate of the buccal wall of extraction sockets of teeth with prominent roots" 26 : 19-29, 2006

13 Antoun H, "A prospective randomized study comparing two techniques of bone augmentation: onlay graft alone or associated with a membrane" 12 : 632-639, 2001