4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Histopathological comparison of healing after maxillary sinus augmentation using xenograft mixed with autogenous bone versus allograft mixed with autogenous bone

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference.

          The primary function of a dental implant is to act as an abutment for a prosthetic device, similar to a natural tooth root and crown. Any success criteria, therefore, must include first and foremost support of a functional prosthesis. In addition, although clinical criteria for prosthetic success are beyond the scope of this article, patient satisfaction with the esthetic appearance of the implant restoration is necessary in clinical practice. The restoring dentist designs and fabricates a prosthesis similar to one supported by a tooth, and as such often evaluates and treats the dental implant similarly to a natural tooth. Yet, fundamental differences in the support system between these entities should be recognized. The purpose of this article is to use a few indices developed for natural teeth as an index that is specific for endosteal root-form implants. This article is also intended to update and upgrade what is purported to be implant success, implant survival, and implant failure. The Health Scale presented in this article was developed and accepted by the International Congress of Oral Implantologists Consensus Conference for Implant Success in Pisa, Italy, October 2007.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Bone grafts, bone substitutes and orthobiologics: the bridge between basic science and clinical advancements in fracture healing.

            The biology of fracture healing is better understood than ever before, with advancements such as the locking screw leading to more predictable and less eventful osseous healing. However, at times one's intrinsic biological response, and even concurrent surgical stabilization, is inadequate. In hopes of facilitating osseous union, bone grafts, bone substitutes and orthobiologics are being relied on more than ever before. The osteoinductive, osteoconductive and osteogenic properties of these substrates have been elucidated in the basic science literature and validated in clinical orthopaedic practice. Furthermore, an industry built around these items is more successful and in demand than ever before. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the basic science, clinical utility and economics of bone grafts, bone substitutes and orthobiologics.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Understanding peri-implant endosseous healing.

              If dental implantology is an increasingly successful treatment modality, why should we still need to understand the mechanisms of peri-implant bone healing? Are there differences in cortical and trabecular healing? What does "poor quality" bone mean? What stages of healing are most important? How do calcium phosphate-coated implants accelerate healing? What is the mechanism of bone bonding? While there are still many aspects of peri-implant healing that need to be elucidated, it is now possible to deconvolute this biological reaction cascade, both phenomenologically and experimentally, into three distinct phases that mirror the evolution of bone into an exquisite tissue capable of regeneration. The first and most important healing phase, osteoconduction, relies on the recruitment and migration of osteogenic cells to the implant surface, through the residue of the peri-implant blood clot. Among the most important aspects of osteoconduction are the knock-on effects generated at the implant surface, by the initiation of platelet activation, which result in directed osteogenic cell migration. The second healing phase, de novo bone formation, results in a mineralized interfacial matrix equivalent to that seen in the cement line in natural bone tissue. These two healing phases, osteoconduction and de novo bone formation, result in contact osteogenesis and, given an appropriate implant surface, bone bonding. The third healing phase, bone remodeling, relies on slower processes and is not considered here. This discussion paper argues that it is the very success of dental implants that is driving their increased use in ever more challenging clinical situations and that many of the most important steps in the peri-implant healing cascade are profoundly influenced by implant surface microtopography. By understanding what is important in peri-implant bone healing, we are now able to answer all the questions listed above.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Clinical Oral Implants Research
                Clin Oral Impl Res
                Wiley
                09057161
                February 2018
                February 2018
                October 26 2017
                : 29
                : 2
                : 192-201
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Oral Surgery and Implant Dentistry; School of Dentistry; University of Granada; Granada Spain
                [2 ]Department of Anatomy; School of Medicine; University of Granada; Granada Spain
                [3 ]Public Dental Health Service, Arnau de Vilanova Hospital & Department of Dentistry; European University of Valencia; Valencia Spain
                [4 ]Department of Pathology & Institute of Biopathology and Regenerative Medicine (IBIMER, CIBM); University of Granada; Granada Spain
                Article
                10.1111/clr.13098
                ea5354ea-c31f-4a40-9b0c-c5a71ea90c3d
                © 2017

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article