Estudo comparativo do Biogran® e Endobon® associados a implantes com defeitos periimplantares

• Ano de defesa: 2015
• Autor(a) principal: Carvalho, Helen Ramon Esper de [UNESP]
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
• Palavras-chave em Português: Implantes dentários; Transplante ósseo; Materiais biomédicos; Dental implants
• Link de acesso: http://hdl.handle.net/11449/134207; http://www.athena.biblioteca.unesp.br/exlibris/bd/cathedra/28-01-2016/000857959.pdf

Introduction: The use of biomaterials in reconstructions for dental implants has been widely discussed in recent years. Proposition: The aim of this work was to analize the biological behavior of the bioactive glass (Biogran®) and bovine bone (Endobon®) during the osseointegration process associated with implants with peri-implant defects in rat tibia. Material and Methods: 75 implants were installed in the left tibia of 75 male Wistar rats. The implants were divided into three experimental groups. In Group 1 (Control) was caused monocortical circular peri-implant defect and the implants were inserted and left only with clot. In Group 2 implants were inserted with the same bone defect and the space filled with Biogran® and in Group 3 the space between bone and implant was filled with Endobon®. The animals were euthanized at 14 and 42 days and there were the histological analysis, histometric (percentage of linear extension bone-implant contact - BIC and bone area - BA), immunohistochemistry (expression of the proteins osteocalcin - OC and osteopontin - OPN) and biomechanics (reverse torque). Results: Histologically all implants were osseointegrated. No statistically significant differences were observed in the values of reverse torque (p> 0.05) at 42 days. For BIC, at 14 days was 8.29; 15.04; and 16.20% for the groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. After 42 days, the BIC values were 30.84; 33.13; and 13.93% for the same groups, demonstrating that there were no statistical differences between groups, but with different responses between periods. For the quantification of bone formation per area (BA), the response differs between groups. The average BA response in Group 1 (18.75%) did not differ from the average Group 3 response (21.62%). However, different from Group 2 (34.73%). The immunohistochemical results were analyzed by Qualitative...