Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¼º°ß¿¡¼­ SLA¢ç¿Í Joy 1 implant¢çÀÇ °ñ-ÀÓÇöõÆ® °è¸éÀÇ Á¶Á÷ÇüÅ°èÃøÇÐÀû ¿¬±¸

Histomorphometric analysis of implant-bone interface between SLA¢ç and Joy 1 implant¢ç in dogs

±¸°­»ý¹°Çבּ¸ 2014³â 38±Ç 2È£ p.58 ~ 62
Á¤¹Î±¸, Á¤¸íÁø, ÀÌ¿øÇ¥, ¹Úµµ¿µ, À¯»óÁØ, ±èº´¿Á,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Á¤¹Î±¸ ( Jung Min-Gu ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø Ä¡ÁÖ°úÇб³½Ç
Á¤¸íÁø ( Zheng Ming-Zhen ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø Ä¡ÁÖ°úÇб³½Ç
ÀÌ¿øÇ¥ ( Lee Won-Pyo ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø Ä¡ÁÖ°úÇб³½Ç
¹Úµµ¿µ ( Park Do-Young ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø Ä¡ÁÖ°úÇб³½Ç
À¯»óÁØ ( Yu Sang-Joun ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø Ä¡ÁÖ°úÇб³½Ç
±èº´¿Á ( Kim Byung-Ock ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø Ä¡ÁÖ°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract


Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare the osseointegration of SLA¢ç to these of Joy 1 implant¢ç.

Materials and Methods: In 6 beagle dogs, 3rd and 4th mandibular premolar were extracted bilaterally. After 3 months, four transmucosal screw-shaped implants were placed in each mandibular edentulous premolar region. Control groups were SLA¢ç and experimental groups were Joy 1 implant¢ç. The implants were allowed to heal for 4 or 8 weeks. At the end of the experiment, the dogs were sacrificed and each of implant sites was dissected and processed for histomorphometric analysis.

Results: Histomorphometric analysis showed direct osseous integration for both implants. No significant difference between both types of implants could be detected after 4 and 8 weeks healing periods in bone to implant contact (BIC) and bone ingrowth (BI).

Conclusion: The results indicate that there was no difference in osseointegration between SLA¢ç implant and Joy 1 implant¢ç regarding BIC and BI, Joy 1 implant¢ç showed similar histological response with SLA¢ç implant. Dental implants, Osseointegration.

Å°¿öµå

Dental implants; Osseointegration

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI