We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Injectable bioactive glass in the restoration of oral bone defect.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the application value of injectable bioactive glass in the restoration of the oral bone defect.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 58 consecutive patients with oral bone defect > 1 mm, these patients were randomly assigned to a control group (n=26, Hydroxyapatite bioceramics) and an observation group (n=32, Injectable bioactive glass). The purpose of this study was to assess the comparison of the healing of oral bone defect.
RESULTS: X-ray examination was performed at 6-month and 12-month following treatment. The bone healing in the observation group was significantly better than the control group (p <0.05), the incidences of local rejection reactions were not significantly different (p >0.05). Cone-beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) was performed at 6-month and 12-month following treatment. The mean bone thickness in the observation group was significantly lower than the control group, p <0.05. Both the levels of bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2) and transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) in the observation group were significantly higher than the control group, p <0.05.
CONCLUSIONS: The effect of injectable bioactive glass in the restoration of the oral bone defect was better than hydroxyapatite bioceramics. Thus, injectable bioactive glass has great application value.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 58 consecutive patients with oral bone defect > 1 mm, these patients were randomly assigned to a control group (n=26, Hydroxyapatite bioceramics) and an observation group (n=32, Injectable bioactive glass). The purpose of this study was to assess the comparison of the healing of oral bone defect.
RESULTS: X-ray examination was performed at 6-month and 12-month following treatment. The bone healing in the observation group was significantly better than the control group (p <0.05), the incidences of local rejection reactions were not significantly different (p >0.05). Cone-beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) was performed at 6-month and 12-month following treatment. The mean bone thickness in the observation group was significantly lower than the control group, p <0.05. Both the levels of bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2) and transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) in the observation group were significantly higher than the control group, p <0.05.
CONCLUSIONS: The effect of injectable bioactive glass in the restoration of the oral bone defect was better than hydroxyapatite bioceramics. Thus, injectable bioactive glass has great application value.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app