Using a Dense PTFE Membrane Without Primary Closure to Achieve Bone and Tissue Regeneration

Barber, H. Dexter; Lignelli, John L; Smith, Brian M.; Bartee, Barry K.

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2006.10.042

Cited by 118 publications

(114 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Either way, the membrane is unlikely to provide an adequate barrier for the purpose of keeping the underlying space free to allow for bone growth (although it is unnecessary to remove an exposed bioresorbable membrane) (15,24,25). Non-resorbable d-PTFE membranes feature pores 0.2 mm in diameter that prevent bacterial infiltration and, even if the membrane is exposed, the risk of complications and infections is much lower than with e-PTFE membranes.…”

Section: Figure 16mentioning

confidence: 99%

MANAGEMENT OF THE EXPOSURE OF A DENSE PTFE (d-PTFE) MEMBRANE IN GUIDED BONE REGENERATION (GBR): A CASE REPORT

Ghensi

Stablum²,

Bettio

et al. 2017

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYGuided bone regeneration (GBR) is a well-established and generally predictable method for repairing alveolar ridge defects and preparing edentulous sites for implant placement. Standard GBR involves filling the space underneath a membrane with autogenous bone or a mixture composed of autogenous bone particles and allogeneic bone tissue or heterologous biomaterials. The use of a barrier membrane for GBR has sometimes been associated with complications, however -reportedly involving exposure, infection, and collapse -and the non-resorbable types of membrane seem to be involved more often than the resorbable solutions. Such complications may be severe enough to defeat the object of the GBR procedure. A non-resorbable high-density polytetrafluoroethylene (d-PTFE) membrane has recently been designed specifically for use in bone-augmentation procedures that seems to assure a good bone regeneration process even when the membrane is exposed to the oral cavity. This case report describes an exposure of a d-PTFE membrane occurring after a maxillary GBR procedure and how it was overcome successfully, enabling implants insertion.

show abstract

Section: Figure 16mentioning

confidence: 99%

MANAGEMENT OF THE EXPOSURE OF A DENSE PTFE (d-PTFE) MEMBRANE IN GUIDED BONE REGENERATION (GBR): A CASE REPORT

Ghensi

Stablum²,

Bettio

et al. 2017

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(fig. 6) (23)(24)(25) Resorbable membranes are easier to use, but we cannot manage the time of their resorption and the effect that degradation has on the bone formation. (26,27) The most important collagen membrane is BioGuide.…”

Section: Results and Discussion Results And Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Collagen, PTFE and PRF Membranes in Bone Reconstruction an Experimental and Histomorphometric Study

Neculae¹,

Anghelescu²,

Zurac³

et al. 2017

JTMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bone regeneration techniques cannot be done without barrier membranes, even if horizontal or vertical ridge augmentation and socket ridge preservation is taken into consideration. This study presents a comparison between outcomes of bone regeneration, after producing standardized bone defects followed by covering them with membranes, on an animal experimental model. The study was conducted on 18 New Zeeland rabbits, by creating 2 defects in the left tibial bone of each rabbit: one standardized defect with a diameter of 4 mm, and the second by creating 5 monocortical holes with a small round bur. The defects were augmented with bovine bone, beta-tricalcium phosphate and perioglass and they were covered with 3 types of membrane: collagen (12 defects -group A), PTFE membrane (12 defects -group B) and PRF membrane, made from the blood of the same rabbit (12 defects -group C). The animals were sacrificed after 6 months and analysed histomorphometrically. The new bone around graft particles has a thickness of 98.26 μm for collagen membrane, 49.19 μm for PTFE membrane and 63.98 μm for PRF membrane. The density of osteoblasts and osteocytes has an average of 0.0012 for collagen membrane, 0.0009 for PTFE membrane and 0.0010 for PRF membrane. Regarding the collagen membrane, it is observed that when used the bone regeneration appears to have a higher density of osteoforming cells and a higher quantity of new bone

show abstract

“…Firstly, as already stated, intact socket walls are essential in order to avoid the concomitant need and challenges/complications of simultaneous guided bone augmentation grafting. Where one or more socket walls are missing or have a significant dehiscence, socket preservation grafting [24,36] and delayed implant placement are more appropriate. Since placing IMIs does not eliminate post-extraction alveolar ridge remodeling [37,38], it is recommended that IMIs be submerged by up to 2 mm on the buccal aspect to compensate for the expected buccal crestal bone loss [29,33,39].…”

Section: Managing Socket Anatomymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If adequate keratinized gingiva is lacking, a graft of palatal connective tissue can be harvested and inserted under the buccal and lingual/palatal flap margins and over the implant as one would place a membrane [23]. Alternatively, a dense PTFE membrane can be placed in a similar fashion over the implant and left exposed so as to promote healing by secondary intention with generation of new keratinized tissue [24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for Optimizing Outcomes with Immediate Molar Implant Placement

Deporter¹

2017

Austin J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a follow-up to a recent systematic literature review with metaanalysis of outcomes when using immediate molar implants (IMIs). An attempt has been made to offer guidelines to assist clinicians in their successful use of this treatment approach. The surgeon's ability, proper case selection, socket anatomy, and specific modifications in osteotomy preparation all are crucial in avoiding errors, complications and implant failure. While long-term data are sparse, IMIs appear to be a viable treatment option if the offered guidelines are strictly followed.Keywords: Tooth extraction; Dental implantation; Endosseous; Guided tissue regeneration IntroductionWe have recently published a systematic review and metaanalysis of literature published from November 2008 to May 2015 reporting outcomes following immediate molar dental implant (IMI) placement [1]. The search format was that recommended by the Academy of Osseointegration Workshop on the State of Science on Implant Dentistry (SSID) [2,3]. The search language used was similar to that employed in a previous review conducted by others on IMI data up to October 2008 [4]. Criteria for qualification of studies to be included in the analysis were: i) at least 10 IMIs; ii) minimum followup 1 year in function; iii) clearly reported/interpretable survival and/or success (based on crestal bone loss) data; and iv) use of rootform, solid, titanium or titanium alloy implants. Fifteen publications fulfilling these criteria were identified, none of which were doubleblind, randomized, controlled prospective clinical trials. Recognizing this limitation, our analysis supported Atieh's earlier conclusion [4] that it is possible to obtain good outcomes with IMIs with the added proviso that those of diameters >6 mm may be at greater risk of failure.There are obvious advantages for patients and clinicians in providing immediate implant replacement of molar teeth. These include fewer and potentially less invasive surgical procedures, greater patient acceptance, less chair time, lower treatment fees, shorter treatment times, and potentially fewer risks. The clinician needs to be aware, however, that achieving success with IMIs is affected by many factors. In the present paper, we have attempted to formulate guidelines for the successful use of IMIs. Considerations will include case selection, reason for extraction, quality and quantity of keratinized tissue, socket anatomy and how it impacts osteotomy preparation, implant design, and initial implant stability. Discussion Case selectionAs with all technique-sensitive surgical procedures, not all clinicians will be capable of successfully employing IMI procedures because of infrequent usage of the procedure, failure to follow

show abstract

Using a Dense PTFE Membrane Without Primary Closure to Achieve Bone and Tissue Regeneration

Cited by 118 publications

References 7 publications

MANAGEMENT OF THE EXPOSURE OF A DENSE PTFE (d-PTFE) MEMBRANE IN GUIDED BONE REGENERATION (GBR): A CASE REPORT

MANAGEMENT OF THE EXPOSURE OF A DENSE PTFE (d-PTFE) MEMBRANE IN GUIDED BONE REGENERATION (GBR): A CASE REPORT

Use of Collagen, PTFE and PRF Membranes in Bone Reconstruction an Experimental and Histomorphometric Study

Guidelines for Optimizing Outcomes with Immediate Molar Implant Placement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About