http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
가토 두개골 결손부에서 비흡수성 차단막의 유지 기간에 따른 골조직 형성효과
정민구,장현선,김병옥,Jung, Min-Gu,Jang, Hyun-Seon,Kim, Byung-Ock 대한치주과학회 2007 Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science Vol.37 No.3
When clinicians faced with an insufficient volume of supporting bone on ideally esthetic and bio-mechanical position for dental implantation, guided bone regeneration(GBR) was indicated. Although GBR has wide application at clinic, proper time of membrane removal remains qustionable in using non-resorbable membrane, such as non-expanded polytetrafluoroethylene(PTFE), The aim of this study was to compare the effect of maintenance period of PTFE membrane on bone regeneration in rabbit calvarial defects. Eight adult New Zealand white female rabbits were used in this study. Four defects were surgically made in their calvaria. Using a trephine bur, 4 'through and through' defects were created and classified into 3 groups, which were consisted of control group(no graft), experimental group 1(autogenous bone)and experimental group 2(deproteinized bovine bone; $OCS-B^{(R)}$). The defects were covered with PTFE membrane($Cytoplast^{(R)}$). Membranes were removed after 1, 2, 4 and 8 weeks post-GBR procedure in 2 rabbits repectively, All rabbits were sacrificed after 8 week post-GBR procedure. Specimens were harvested and observed histologically. The results were as follow; 1) The use of graft material and membrane was necessary in GBR procedure. 2) When PTFE membranes were removed early, the most favorable bone regeneration was revealed in experimental group T, followed by experimental group II and control group. 3) On GBR, it is recommended that membrane should maintain for 4 weeks with autogenous graft. As well, the use of xenograft need longer maintenance period than autogenous bone. Further evaluations will be needed, such as histomorphologic research, more species and different kinds of graft materials. And on the basis of these studies, clinical researches would be required.
정민구 ( Min Gu Jung ),유상준 ( Sang Joun Yu ) 조선대학교 구강생물학연구소 2012 Oral Biology Research (Oral Biol Res) Vol.36 No.1
Currently, with increased esthetic demands, implantologists must establish a harmonious gingival contour and an intact papilla. Height and contour of peri-implant papilla are infl uenced by a position of the implant, an osseous support, a volume of gingival embrasure, and a biotype of interdental gingiva. Various hard and soft tissue surgical techniques for preservation and reconstruction of papilla have been introduced. Preservation and reconstruction of alveolar bone under an area of interdental papilla is the foundation for the presence of papilla by socket preservation, guided bone regeneration. Soft tissue grafting can be used to enhance esthetic outcomes. For preservation and reconstruction of peri-implant papilla, a multidisciplinary approach involving both the restorative dentist and surgeon should be followed.
성견에서 SLA®와 Joy 1 implant®의 골-임플란트 계면의 조직형태계측학적 연구
정민구 ( Min Gu Jung ),정명진 ( Ming Zhen Zheng ),이원표 ( Won Pyo Lee] ),박도영 ( Do Young Park ),유상준 ( Sang Joun Yn ),김병옥 ( Byung Ock Kim ) 조선대학교 치의학연구원 2014 Oral Biology Research (Oral Biol Res) Vol.38 No.2
Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare the osseointegration of SLA® to these of Joy 1 implant®. Materials and Methods: In 6 beagle dogs, 3rd and 4th mandibular premolar were extracted bilaterally. After 3 months, four transmucosal screw-shaped implants were placed in each mandibular edentulous premolar region. Control groups were SLA® and experimental groups were Joy 1 implant®. The implants were allowed to heal for 4 or 8 weeks. At the end of the experiment, the dogs were sacrificed and each of implant sites was dissected and processed for histomorphometric analysis. Results: Histomorphometric analysis showed direct osseous integration for both implants. No significant difference between both types of implants could be detected after 4 and 8 weeks healing periods in bone to implant contact (BIC) and bone ingrowth (BI). Conclusion: The results indicate that there was no difference in osseointegration between SLA® implant and Joy 1 implant® regarding BIC and BI, Joy 1 implant® showed similar histological response with SLA® implant. Dental implants, Osseointegration.