Connective tissue graft as a biological barrier for guided tissue regeneration in intrabony defects: a histological study in dogs

Background The use of the autogenous periosteal graft as biological barrier has been proposed for periodontal regeneration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the histometric findings of the subepithelial connective tissue graft as barrier in intrabony defects compared to a bioabsorbable membrane...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical oral investigations 2015-06, Vol.19 (5), p.997-1004
Main Authors: Ribeiro, Fernando Salimon, Pontes, Ana Emília Farias, Zuza, Elizangela Partata, da Silva, Vanessa Camila, Lia, Raphael Carlos Comelli, Junior, Elcio Marcantonio
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Absorbable Implants
Animals
Biocompatible Materials
Bone Regeneration
Connective Tissue - transplantation
Dentistry
Dogs
Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods
Maxilla - surgery
Medicine
Membranes, Artificial
Original Article
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background The use of the autogenous periosteal graft as biological barrier has been proposed for periodontal regeneration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the histometric findings of the subepithelial connective tissue graft as barrier in intrabony defects compared to a bioabsorbable membrane. Methods Three-walled intrabony defects were created surgically in the mesial aspect of the right and left maxillary canines in five healthy mongrel dogs. The defects were chronified, and two types of barriers were randomly carried out for guided tissue regeneration in a split-mouth design: the test group with a subepithelial connective tissue graft and the control group with a bioabsorbable membrane. The specimens were processed for histometric analyses of the epithelium (E), connective tissue (CT), newly formed cementum (NC), new bone (NB), and total newly formed tissues (NFT). Results The test side showed smaller mean of NC (3.6 ± 1.2), NB (2.1 ± 0.7), and NFT (7.7 ± 0.8) than the control group (NC 7.3 ± 0.5; NB 5.3 ± 1.3; NFT 10.1 ± 2.2; P   0.05) and CT (test 2.5 ± 1.1; control 2.0 ± 0.5; P  > 0.05) between groups. Conclusion The bioabsorbable membrane was more effective in maintaining the space for periodontal regeneration than periosteal connective graft when used as barrier. Clinical relevance The bioabsorbable membrane showed more favorable regenerative results in intrabony defects in dogs than the subepithelial connective tissue graft as biological barrier.
ISSN:1432-6981
1436-3771
DOI:10.1007/s00784-014-1323-1