기관회원 [로그인]
소속기관에서 받은 아이디, 비밀번호를 입력해 주세요.
개인회원 [로그인]

비회원 구매시 입력하신 핸드폰번호를 입력해 주세요.
본인 인증 후 구매내역을 확인하실 수 있습니다.

회원가입
서지반출
성견의 열개형 골 결손부에서 흡수성 차단막과 PDGF-BB 및 IGF-I의 혼합 사용시 치주조직의 치유에 미치는 영향
[STEP1]서지반출 형식 선택
파일형식
@
서지도구
SNS
기타
[STEP2]서지반출 정보 선택
  • 제목
  • URL
돌아가기
확인
취소
  • 성견의 열개형 골 결손부에서 흡수성 차단막과 PDGF-BB 및 IGF-I의 혼합 사용시 치주조직의 치유에 미치는 영향
저자명
조규성,김창성,최성호,Cho. Kyoo-Sung,Kim. Chang-Sung,Choi. Seong-Ho
간행물명
대한치주과학회지
권/호정보
1997년|27권 1호|pp.217-234 (18 pages)
발행정보
대한치주과학회
파일정보
정기간행물|
PDF텍스트
주제분야
기타
이 논문은 한국과학기술정보연구원과 논문 연계를 통해 무료로 제공되는 원문입니다.
서지반출

기타언어초록

The purpose of present study is to compare the effect of treatment using $Guidor^{(R)}$ as a barrier membrane in conjunction with platelet-derived growth factor and insulin like growth factors on experimental dehiscence defects. Following the resection of premolar crowns, roots were submerged. After 12 weeks of healing period, experimental dehiscence defects of 4mm in height and 4mm in width were surgically created on the mid-facial aspect of the lower premolar roots in each of 4 adult dogs. After root planning and demineralization of the root surface with citric acid, the control groups received 4% methylcellulose gel only, the test group I received 4% methylcellulose gel and were covered by $Guidor^{(R)}$ and the test group II were treated with PDGF and IGF and 4% methylcellulose gel with $Guidor^{(R)}$ coverage. Histological and histomorphometric analysis following 8 weeks of healing revealed the following results. 1. The new bone formation showed no statistically significant difference in all groups with $0.59{pm}0.82mm$($14.03{pm}19.60%$) for control, $0.70{pm}0.39mm$($16.30{pm}9.01%$) for group I, $0.87{pm}0.76mm$($18.74{pm}16.03%$) for group II. 2. The new cementum formation showed no statistically significant difference in all groups with $0.54{pm}0.48mm$($l6.38{pm}14.57%$) for control, $0.95{pm}0.38mm$($23.43{pm}9.30%$) for group I, $1.01{pm}0.75mm$($22.10{pm}16.ll%$) for gorup II. 3. The root resorption showed statistically significant differences betweenthe control group and all test groups(p<0.05) with $2.11{pm}0.53mm$($52.93{pm}12.32%$) for control, $0.63{pm}0.27mm$($15.32{pm}7.05%$) for group I, $0.89{pm}0.33mm$ ($19.26{pm}7.11%$) for group II. On the bases of these results, there were no statistically difference between treatment using resorbable membrane and resorbable membrane in conjunction with PDGF and IGF in the dehiscence defects, where it was difficult to maintain space. The use of membrane seemed to be more effective in the inhibition of root resorption.