Retrospective comparative clinical study for silk mat application into extraction socket

Abstract

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.

The Effect of Sericin on Bone Regeneration in a Streptozotocin-Induced Type I Diabetes Animal Model

“…Sericin has demonstrated the ability to enhance bone regeneration in a regular animal model [1]. Silk mat, which is the combination of sericin and fibroin, has increased bone regeneration in clinical trials [22]. In this study, a diabetic animal model was used to determine whether it had a similar effect on a surgically created defect.…”

Treatment of Osseous Defects after Mandibular Third Molar Removal with a Resorbable Alloplastic Grafting Material: A Case Series with 1- to 2-Year Follow-Up

“…Follow-up was variable (minimum 1 year and maximum 2 years post-operatively). The amount of BD was defined as the distance between the cementoenamel junction of the second molar and the bottom of the bony defect on the distal surface of the M2 [ 1 , 11 , 12 ]. PD was clinically recorded at T0 and T1, measured with a periodontal probe at the central portion of the distal aspect of M2, as the distance from the free gingival margin to the bottom of the periodontal pocket ( Figure 1 ).…”

“…The presence of third molars is common in humans, and M3s are frequently found to be fully or semi- impacted in the bone [ 1 ]. The presence of a M3 that failed to erupt or is partially erupted may cause a plethora of problems, and indications for M3s removal include acute or chronic infection, pain, caries, prevention or repair of periodontal defects, pathology associated with cystic degeneration and/or neoplastic transformation of the dental follicle, and facilitation of orthodontic treatment [ 2 , 3 ].…”

“…It has been shown that in patients older than 26 years with a mesioangular or horizontal impaction and pre-existing periodontal defects, the periodontal healing of the M2 may be complicated resulting to intraosseous defects and deep periodontal pockets after M3 removal. According to the literature the majority of M3s indicated for surgical removal are mesially or horizontally inclined being in close proximity or in contact with the M2, and periodontal problems are found in 48% of M2s after extraction of the adjacent M3, with post-operative residual probing depth > 7 mm in 43.3% [ 1 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ].…”

“…In order to prevent periodontal complications and assist the bone reconstruction of the sites after the surgical removal of M3s in such cases, and especially for patients older than 26 years, clinicians might need to implement additional measures, and guided bone regeneration techniques with the use of bone grafts are commonly considered for the reconstruction of the M3 extraction socket [ 1 , 3 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ].…”