• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• 제36권4호
• /
• pp.275-279
• /
• 2010

Introduction: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is a common procedure for the treatment of bone defects and bone augmentation. The nonresorbable barriers are well-documented barriers for GBR because of their stability and malleability. However, few GBR studies have focused on the different types of non-resorbable barriers. Therefore, this study examined the clinical results of different non-resorbable barriers for GBR; expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) (TR-Gore Tex, Flagstaff, AZ, USA), and high-density polytetrafluoroethylene (d-PTFE) (Cytoplast membrane, Oraltronics, Bremen, Germany). Materials and Methods: The analysis was performed on patients treated with GBR and implant placement from January 2007 to October 2007 in the department of the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. The patients were divided into two groups based on the type of non-resorbable barrier used, and the amount of bone regeneration, marginal bone resorption after prosthetics, implant survival rate and surgical complication in both groups were evaluated. Results: The implants in both groups showed high survival rates, and the implant-supported prostheses functioned stably during the follow-up period. During the second surgery of the implant, all horizontal defects were filled with new bone, and there was no significant difference in the amount of vertical bone defect. Conclusion: In bone defect areas, GBR with non-resorbable barriers can produce favorable results with adequate postoperative management. There was no significant difference in bone regeneration between e-PTFE and d-PTFE.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• 제41권
• /
• pp.16.1-16.6
• /
• 2019

Background: Silk mats have been approved for clinical trials by the Korean Food and Drug Administration as membranes for guided tissue regeneration (GTR). In this study, silk mat application was compared to high-density polytetrafluoroethylene (dPTFE) membrane application or no membrane group. Methods: To compare the silk mat group to the dPTFE group or the no membrane group, a retrospective sample collection was conducted. Bony defects were measured at the time of extraction (T0) and then at 3 months (T1) and 6 months after extraction (T2) on a digital panoramic view. Bone gain (BG) was calculated by subtracting from the bony defect at T0 to the bony defect at each follow-up. Results: The BG at T2 was 2.44 ± 2.49 mm, 4.18 ± 1.80 mm, and 4.24 ± 2.05 mm in the no membrane group, silk mat group, and dPTFE group, respectively. Both membrane groups had significantly higher BG than BG in the no membrane group at T2 (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Both membrane groups showed higher BG than the no membrane group.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• 제41권5호
• /
• pp.253-258
• /
• 2011

Purpose: Immediate implantation presents challenges regarding site healing, osseointegration, and obtaining complete soft-tissue coverage of the extraction socket, especially in the posterior area. This last issue is addressed herein using the double-membrane (collagen membrane+high-density polytetrafluoroethylene [dPTFE] membrane) technique in two clinical cases of posterior immediate implant placement. Methods: An implant was placed immediately after atraumatically extracting the maxillary posterior tooth. The gap between the coronal portion of the fixture and the adjacent bony walls was filled with allograft material. In addition, a collagen membrane (lower) and dPTFE membrane (upper) were placed in a layer-by-layer manner to enable the closure of the extraction socket without a primary flap closure, thus facilitating the preservation of keratinized mucosa. The upper dPTFE membrane was left exposed for 4 weeks, after which the membrane was gently removed using forceps without flap elevation. Results: There was considerable plaque deposition on the outer surface of the dPTFE membrane but not on the inner surface. Moreover, scanning electron microscopy of the removed membrane revealed only a small amount of bacteria on the inner surface of the membrane. The peri-implant tissue was favorable both clinically and radiographically after a conventional dental-implant healing period. Conclusions: Secondary closure of the extraction socket and immediate guided bone regeneration using the double-membrane technique may produce a good clinical outcome after immediate placement of a dental implant in the posterior area.