Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

RBM surface ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ °ñÇü¼º¿¡ ´ëÇÑ EPMA ºÐ¼®

EPMA analysis of bone formation around RBM surface implant

´ëÇÑÄ¡ÁÖ°úÇÐȸÁö 2008³â 38±Ç 3È£ p.503 ~ 509
Á¤È¯Á¾, ÀÓ¼ººó, Á¤ÁøÇü, È«±â¼®,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Á¤È¯Á¾ ( Jung Hwan-Jong ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡ÁÖ°úÇб³½Ç
ÀÓ¼ººó ( Lim Sung-Bin ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡ÁÖ°úÇб³½Ç
Á¤ÁøÇü ( Chung Chin-Hyung ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡ÁÖ°úÇб³½Ç
È«±â¼® ( Hong Ki-Seok ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡ÁÖ°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract


Purpose: To evaluate bone formation on the implant surface between machined fixture and RBM surface fixture through analyzing of distribution and concentration of Ca and P by EPMA.

Material and Methods: Fixtures had divided in 2 group: Machined(Group ¥°), RBM (Group ¥±). Total 4 fixtures were implanted on rabbit which sacrificed on 2 week and 4 week for the histological specimens. By these specimens EPMA value were measured, compared and analysed by each group to figure out the evidence of clinical use of RBM implant.

Result: After 2 weeks and 4 weeks , it was analyzed that bone formation area, distribution and concentration of Ca and P by EPMA. In distribution and concentration of P Group ¥± was higher than Group I, but there were no statistical
significances. In new bone formation area, Group ¥± was more higher than Group ¥° with statistically significances. Both of group, after 4 weeks area is little bit higher than after 2 weeks area but there is no statistically significances.

Conclusion: RBM implant was better than machined implant on the early bone formation.

Å°¿öµå

RBM;Implant;EPMA;Machined;stability

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI