View Item 

Show simple item record

Effect of Ridge Morphology on Guided Bone Regeneration Outcome: Conventional Tomographic Study
dc.contributor.authorPark, Sang‐hoon
dc.contributor.authorBrooks, Sharon L.
dc.contributor.authorOh, Tae‐ju
dc.contributor.authorWang, Hom‐lay
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-05T16:36:15Z
dc.date.available2018-02-05T16:36:15Z
dc.date.issued2009-08
dc.identifier.citationPark, Sang‐hoon ; Brooks, Sharon L.; Oh, Tae‐ju ; Wang, Hom‐lay (2009). "Effect of Ridge Morphology on Guided Bone Regeneration Outcome: Conventional Tomographic Study." Journal of Periodontology 80(8): 1231-1236.
dc.identifier.issn0022-3492
dc.identifier.issn1943-3670
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/141560
dc.publisherAmerican Academy of Periodontology
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.otherBone regeneration
dc.subject.othermorphology
dc.subject.othertomography
dc.subject.otherdental implant
dc.titleEffect of Ridge Morphology on Guided Bone Regeneration Outcome: Conventional Tomographic Study
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelDentistry
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Radiology, Medical School University of Michigan.
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Periodontics, Dental School, Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141560/1/jper1231.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1902/jop.2009.090090
dc.identifier.sourceJournal of Periodontology
dc.identifier.citedreferenceIto K, Yoshinuma N, Goke E, Arai Y, Shinoda K. Clinical application of a new compact computed tomography system for evaluating the outcome of regenerative therapy: A case report. J Periodontol 2001; 72: 696 â 702.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoses O, Pitaru S, Artzi Z, Nemcovsky CE. Healing of dehiscenceâ type defects in implants placed together with different barrier membranes: A comparative clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 16: 210 â 219.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWang HL, Boyapati L. â PASSâ principles for predictable bone regeneration. Implant Dent 2006; 15: 8 â 17.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZitzmann NU, Schärer P, Marinello CP. Factors influencing the success of GBR. Smoking, timing of implant placement, implant location, bone quality and provisional restoration. J Clin Periodontol 1999; 26: 673 â 682.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZitzmann NU, Schärer P, Marinello CP. Longâ term results of implants treated with guided bone regeneration: A 5â year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001; 16: 355 â 366.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBuser D, Brägger U, Lang NP, Nyman S. Regeneration and enlargement of jaw bone using guided tissue regeneration. Clin Oral Implants Res 1990; 1: 22 â 32.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWang HL, Alâ Shammari K. HVC ridge deficiency classification: A therapeutically oriented classification. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2002; 22: 335 â 343.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMisch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry, 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999: 97 â 99.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBolin A, > Eliasson S, von Beetzen M, Jansson L. Radiographic evaluation of mandibular posterior implant sites: Correlation between panoramic and tomographic determinations. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996; 7: 354 â 359.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTyndall DA, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: A position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000; 89: 630 â 637.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBou Serhal C, Jacobs R, Persoons M, Hermans R, van Steenberghe D. The accuracy of spiral tomography to assess bone quantity for the preoperative planning of implants in the posterior maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 242 â 247.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L. Impact of conventional tomography on prediction of the appropriate implant size. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 92: 458 â 463.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBou Serhal C, van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M, Jacobs R. Localization of the mandibular canal using conventional spiral tomography: A human cadaver study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12: 230 â 236.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNorton MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: An objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12: 79 â 84.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKramer FJ, Baethge C, Swennen G, Rosahl S. Navigated vs. conventional implant insertion for maxillary single tooth replacement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 16: 60 â 68.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVan Steenberghe D, Malevez C, Van Cleynenbreugel J, et al. Accuracy of drilling guides for transfer from threeâ dimensional CTâ based planning to placement of zygoma implants in human cadavers. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14: 131 â 136.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMaréchal M, Luyten F, Nijs J, Postnov A, Schepers E, van Steenberghe D. Histomorphometry and microâ computed tomography of bone augmentation under a titanium membrane. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 16: 708 â 714.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePark SH, Lee KW, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Shotwell J, Wang HL. Effect of absorbable membranes on sandwich bone augmentation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 32 â 41.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWang HL, Misch C, Neiva RF. â Sandwichâ bone augmentation technique: Rationale and report of pilot cases. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2004; 24: 232 â 245.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMajzoub Z, Berengo M, Giardino R, Aldini NN, Cordioli G. Role of intramarrow penetration in osseous repair: A pilot study in the rabbit calvaria. J Periodontol 1999; 70: 1501 â 1510.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLundgren AK, Lundgren D, Hämmerle CH, Nyman S, Sennerby L. Influence of decortication of the donor bone on guided bone augmentation. An experimental study in the rabbit skull bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 99 â 106.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNyman R, Sennerby L, Nyman S, Lundgren D. Influence of bone marrow on membraneâ guided bone regeneration of segmental longâ bone defects in rabbits. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2001; 35: 239 â 246.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSlotte C, Lundgren D. Impact of cortical perforations of contiguous donor bone in a guided bone augmentation procedure: An experimental study in the rabbit skull. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2002; 4: 1 â 10.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNishimura I, Shimizu Y, Ooya K. Effects of cortical bone perforation on experimental guided bone regeneration. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 293 â 300.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSimion M, Baldoni M, Rossi P, Zaffe D. A comparative study of the effectiveness of eâ PTFE membranes with and without early exposure during the healing period. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1994; 14: 166 â 180.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLekholm U, Becker W, Dahlin C, Becker B, Donath K, Morrison E. The role of early versus late removal of GTAM membranes on bone formation at oral implants placed into immediate extraction sockets. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1993; 4: 121 â 129.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZitzmann NU, Naef R, Schärer P. Resorbable versus nonresorbable membranes in combination with Bioâ Oss for guided bone regeneration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997; 12: 844 â 852.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLorenzoni M, Pertl C, Keil C, Wegscheider WA. Treatment of periâ implant defects with guided bone regeneration: A comparative clinical study with various membranes and bone grafts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998; 13: 639 â 646.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMachtei EE. The effect of membrane exposure on the outcome of regenerative procedures in humans: A metaâ analysis. J Periodontol 2001; 72: 512 â 516.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
jper1231.pdf
Size:
741.7KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.