Onley blok greftleme sonrası kazanılan kemik miktarının dental volumetrik tomografi ile değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Çalışmamızda ramus veya simfizden alınan blok greftlerle kazanılan kemik miktarlarının değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Horizontal veya kombine alveolar defekti bulunan 15 hastanın radyolojik görüntüleri restrospektif olarak incelenmiştir. Defektler ramus veya simfiz bölgesinden alınan otojen blok greftlerle ogmente edilmiştir. Pre-op ve post-op 6. ayda alınan dental volumetrik tomografi (DVT) görüntüleri ile kazanılan kemik miktarları değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuçlar Wilcoxon, Mann Whitney U ve Pearson Korelasyon testleri ile değerlendirilmiştir (p

The evaluation of acquired bone volume with onlay block grafting by dental volumetric tomography

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the acquired bone volume obtained from ramus or symphysis block grafts. Materials and Method:This retrospective study was conducted on 15 patients with horizontal or combined alveolar bone defects. They were treated by autogenous bone blocks harvested from the ramus or symphysis. Bone volumes were measured pre-op and post-op 6th month by dental volumetric tomography images respectively. The results were analyzed by Wilcoxon, Mann Whitney U and Pearson Correlation tests (p

Kaynakça

1. Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M, Boisco M. Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17: 136-159.

2. Dolanmaz D, Esen A, Yıldırım G, İnan Ö. The use of au togeneous mandibular bone block grafts for reconstruction of alveolar defects. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2015; 5:71- 76.

3. Bernstein S, Cooke J, Fotek P, Wang HL. Vertical bone augmentation: Where are we now? Implant Dent. 2006; 15:218-219.

4. Idrontino G, Valente NA. Intraoral and extraoral autologous bone block graft techniques: A review of the recent literature. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev. vol. 2016; Article ID: 030316, 2016. doi 10.15713/ins.ijcdmr.99.

5. Misch CM. Comparison of intraoral donor sites for onlay grafting prior to implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997; 12: 767-776.

6. Misch CE, Dietsh F. Bone-grafting materials in implant dentistry. Implant Dent 1993; 2:`158-167.

7. Marx RE. Clinical application of bone biology to mandibular and maxillary reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 1994; 21: 377-392.

8. Fakhry A. The mandibular retromolar area as a donor site in maxillofacial bone grafting : surgical notes. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011; 31: 275-283.

9. Acocella A, Bertolai R, Colafranceschi M, Sacco R. Clinical, histological and histomorphometric evaluation of the healing of mandibular ramus bone block grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation before implant placement. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg 2010; 38: 222-230.

10. Raghoebar GM, Meijndert L, Kalk WWI, Vissink A. Morbidity of mandibular bone harvesting: a comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2007; 22: 359-365.

11. Gapski R, Wang HL, Misch CE. Management of incision design in symphysis graft procedures: a review of the literature. J Oral Implantol 2001; 27: 134-142.

12. Cranin AN, Katzap M, Demirdjan E, Ley J. Autogenous bone ridge augmentation using the mandibular symphysis as a donor. J Oral Implantol 2004; 27: 43-47.

13. Sennerby L, Janson T, Warfvinge J, Carlsson G-E, Bergman B. Mandibular bone resorption in patients treated with tissue-integrated prostheses and in denture wearers. Prelim Manuscr 1988; 46: 135-140.

14. Siebert JW, Angrigiani C, McCarthy JG, Longaker MT. Blood supply of the Le Fort I maxillary segment: an anatomic study. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100: 843-851.

15. Dilek O, Tezulas E, Dincel M. Required minimum primary stability and torque values for immediate loading of mini dental implants: an experimental study in nonviable bovine femoral bone. Oral Surgery, Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodont 2008; 105: 20-27.

16. Winkler S, Morris HF, Ochi S. Implant survival to 36 months as related to length and diameter. Ann Periodontol. 2000; 5: 22-31.

17. Li T, Hu K, Cheng L, Ding Y, Ding Y, Shao J, Kong L. Optimum selection of the dental implant diameter and length in the posterior mandible with poor bone quality – A 3D finite element analysis. Appl Math Modelling 2011; 35: 446-456.

Kaynak Göster

130 71

Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Çocuk diş hekimliğinde restoratif materyaller ve cam karbomerin yeri

Zeliha ERCAN BEKMEZOĞLU, Özge ERKEN GÜNGÖR, HÜSEYİN KARAYILMAZ

Drugs used in the treatment of oral mucosal diseases

Gökay KARAPINAR, Meral ÜNÜR

Karma dişlenme döneminde sabit dil paravanı uygulanan ön açık kapanış vakalarında yumuşak doku değişikliklerinin 3-boyutlu değerlendirilmesi

TANER ÖZTÜRK, Nisa Gül AMUK

Onley blok greftleme sonrası kazanılan kemik miktarının dental volumetrik tomografi ile değerlendirilmesi

MUAMMER ÇAĞRI BURDURLU, FATİH CABBAR, VOLKAN ÇAĞRI DAĞAŞAN, Sezer IŞIKSAÇAN

Dilde mikroinvaziv karsinom: Bir olgu sunumu

Erdoğan FİŞEKÇİOĞLU, Belde ARSAN, Gözde TURGUT, Gürcan VURAL

Anterior Open Bite Treatment with Zygomatic Anchorage in Adult Patient: A case report

Defne ÇALDEMİR YANIK, Pınar ÜNLÜ KUTAY, SÖNMEZ FIRATLI

Cemento-ossifying Fibroma of the mandible: A case report with 2 - year follow-up

Tayfun CIVAK, FAYSAL UĞURLU

Comparison of curved canal preparations by means of three different root canal curvature measurement techniques

DİLEK TÜRKAYDIN, FATIMA BETÜL BAŞTÜRK, Seda ÖZYÖNEY, Yıldız GARİP BERKER, Hesna Sazak ÖVEÇOĞLU, Mahir GÜNDAY

Halitosis: Periodontal hastalıklarla ilişkisi ve tedavi stratejileri

Ogül Leman TUNAR, Gizem İNCE KUKA, Hazel Zeynep KOCABAŞ, Ebru Özkan KARACA, Hare GÜRSOY, Bahar KURU

Oral ve maksillofasiyal patolojilerin incelenmesi: 5 yıllık retrospektif çalışma

EDA DİDEM YALÇIN, Çiğdem BOZAN