You are in the accessibility menu

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/111846
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDiez, G. F.-
dc.contributor.authorFontao, F. N. G. K.-
dc.contributor.authorBassi, Ana Paula Farnezi-
dc.contributor.authorGama, J. C.-
dc.contributor.authorClaudino, M.-
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-03T13:09:02Z-
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-25T20:09:52Z-
dc.date.available2014-12-03T13:09:02Z-
dc.date.available2016-10-25T20:09:52Z-
dc.date.issued2014-03-01-
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2013.08.010-
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal Of Oral And Maxillofacial Surgery. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, v. 43, n. 3, p. 335-340, 2014.-
dc.identifier.issn0901-5027-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/111846-
dc.identifier.urihttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/111846-
dc.description.abstractAutogenous bone is still considered the gold standard, and the applicability of autogenous bone grafts is well established. However, the possibility of second harvesting from the same donor region remains unclear. The aim of this study was to perform a prospective evaluation of hard tissue deposition in the mandibular ramus after bone block harvesting using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Twenty-two patients with indications for augmentation procedures using autogenous bone from the mandibular ramus were selected. Three CBCT scans were performed with a tomographic guide before bone harvesting (T1) and at 14 days (T2) and 6 months (T3) after the surgical procedures. Measurements were obtained in 2D (area, mm(2)) and 3D (volume, mm(3)), and were subsequently compared. In the 2D analysis, the mean bone formation rate was 56%, while for the 3D analysis the mean rate was 9.7%. Despite this difference, there was a significant correlation between area and volume measurements. Our findings demonstrated the presence of hard tissue in the mandibular ramus at 6 months after bone harvesting, which suggests that it would be possible to reuse the same region for a second block harvesting. However, the second bone harvesting would involve less bone for transplantation when compared to the first bone harvesting.en
dc.format.extent335-340-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherChurchill Livingstone-
dc.sourceWeb of Science-
dc.subjectbone transplantationen
dc.subjectcone beam computed tomographyen
dc.subjectbone regenerationen
dc.titleTomographic follow-up of bone regeneration after bone block harvesting from the mandibular ramusen
dc.typeoutro-
dc.contributor.institutionUniv Planalto Catarinense UNIPLAC-
dc.contributor.institutionLatin Amer Inst Dent Res & Educ ILAPEO-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
dc.description.affiliationUniv Planalto Catarinense UNIPLAC, Dept Oral Surg, Lages, SC, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationLatin Amer Inst Dent Res & Educ ILAPEO, Postgrad Dept, BR-80710150 Curitiba, Parana, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationState Univ Sao Paulo UNESP, Dept Oral Surg, Sao Paulo, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationLatin Amer Inst Dent Res & Educ ILAPEO, BR-80710150 Curitiba, Parana, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationUnespState Univ Sao Paulo UNESP, Dept Oral Surg, Sao Paulo, Brazil-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ijom.2013.08.010-
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000331854000011-
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito-
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-
Appears in Collections:Artigos, TCCs, Teses e Dissertações da Unesp

There are no files associated with this item.
 

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.