Biomechanical Evaluation of Implant Osseointegration After Guided Bone Regeneration With Different Bone Grafts

Simple item page
dc.authoridGul, Mehmet/0000-0002-5721-8778
dc.authoridTekin, Samet/0000-0001-8883-8307
dc.authoridBingul, Bahattin/0000-0002-6581-2363
dc.authoridToy, Vesile Elif/0000-0001-5183-6295
dc.authorwosidGul, Mehmet/AAU-1991-2020
dc.authorwosidTekin, Samet/GNH-3187-2022
dc.authorwosidDundar, Serkan/V-8159-2018
dc.authorwosidBingul, Bahattin/KVB-6095-2024
dc.authorwosidToy, Vesile Elif/ABH-9210-2020
dc.contributor.authorGunes, Nedim
dc.contributor.authorGul, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorDundar, Serkan
dc.contributor.authorTekin, Samet
dc.contributor.authorBozoglan, Alihan
dc.contributor.authorOzcan, Erhan Cahit
dc.contributor.authorKarasu, Necmettin
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-04T20:50:19Z
dc.date.available2024-08-04T20:50:19Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.departmentİnönü Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical osseointegration of titanium implants after guided bone regeneration (GBR) with a hydroxyapatite graft, deproteinized bovine bone graft, human-derived allograft, and calcium sulfate bone graft. Thirty-two female Sprague Dawley rats were divided into four groups, each containing eight (n = 8) rats: hydroxyapatide (HA), deproteinized bovine bone graft (DPBB), allograft (ALG), and calcium sulfate. Bone defects were created in the tibia of the rats, which were grafted with HA, DPBB, ALG, or CP bone grafts for the purpose of GBR. Ninety days after surgery, machine-surfaced titanium implants were inserted into the area where GBR had been undertaken. After 90 days of the surgical insertion of the implants, the rats were sacrificed, the implants with surrounding bone tissue were removed, and biomechanical osseointegration (N/cm) analysis was performed. No statistically significant differences were found among the groups in osseointegration (N/cm) three months after the GBR procedures (P > 0.05). According to the biomechanical results, none of the grafts used in this study was distinctly superior to any of the others.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/SCS.0000000000007102
dc.identifier.endpage1548en_US
dc.identifier.issn1049-2275
dc.identifier.issn1536-3732
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.pmid32969936en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85108123575en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1545en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000007102
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11616/99992
dc.identifier.volume32en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000661595100100en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkinsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Craniofacial Surgeryen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectBiomechanicen_US
dc.subjectbone graftsen_US
dc.subjectbone implant connectionen_US
dc.subjectGuided bone regenerationen_US
dc.subjectosseointegrationen_US
dc.titleBiomechanical Evaluation of Implant Osseointegration After Guided Bone Regeneration With Different Bone Graftsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

Collections

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu

We collect and process your personal information for the following purposes: Authentication, Preferences, Acknowledgement and Statistics.
To learn more, please read our privacy policy.

Customize