Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

  • Volume 41
  • /
  • Pages.16.1-16.6
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 2288-8101(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8586(eISSN)
Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한악안면성형재건외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Retrospective comparative clinical study for silk mat application into extraction socket

  • Kim, Ju-Won (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University) ;
  • Jo, You-Young (Sericultural and Apicultural Division, National Institute of Agricultural Science, RDA) ;
  • Kim, Jwa-Young (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hallym University Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital) ;
  • Oh, Ji-hyeon (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Yang, Byoung-Eun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University) ;
  • Kim, Seong-Gon (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University)
  • Received : 2019.02.11
  • Accepted : 2019.03.18
  • Published : 2019.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Silk mats have been approved for clinical trials by the Korean Food and Drug Administration as membranes for guided tissue regeneration (GTR). In this study, silk mat application was compared to high-density polytetrafluoroethylene (dPTFE) membrane application or no membrane group. Methods: To compare the silk mat group to the dPTFE group or the no membrane group, a retrospective sample collection was conducted. Bony defects were measured at the time of extraction (T0) and then at 3 months (T1) and 6 months after extraction (T2) on a digital panoramic view. Bone gain (BG) was calculated by subtracting from the bony defect at T0 to the bony defect at each follow-up. Results: The BG at T2 was 2.44 ± 2.49 mm, 4.18 ± 1.80 mm, and 4.24 ± 2.05 mm in the no membrane group, silk mat group, and dPTFE group, respectively. Both membrane groups had significantly higher BG than BG in the no membrane group at T2 (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Both membrane groups showed higher BG than the no membrane group.

Keywords

References

  1. Kim SY et al (2017) Extraction socket sealing using palatal gingival grafts and resorbable collagen membranes. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 39:39 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-017-0137-x
  2. Nunn ME et al (2013) Retained asymptomatic third molars and risk for second molar pathology. J Dent Res 92:1095-1099 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034513509281
  3. Kim JC, Choi SS, Wang SJ, Kim SG (2006) Minor complications after mandibular third molar surgery: type, incidence, and possible prevention. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 102:e4-e11
  4. Kugelberg CF, Ahlstrom U, Ericson S, Hugoson A, Kvint S (1991) Periodontal healing after impacted lower third molar surgery in adolescents and adults. A prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 20:18-24 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0901-5027(05)80689-7
  5. Karapataki S, Hugoson A, Kugelberg CF (2000) Healing following GTR treatment of bone defects distal to mandibular 2nd molars after surgical removal of impacted 3rd molars. J Clin Periodontol 27:325-332 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051x.2000.027005325.x
  6. Dodson TB (2005) Is there a role for reconstructive techniques to prevent periodontal defects after third molar surgery? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 63:891-896 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.03.003
  7. Kumar N et al (2015) Evaluation of treatment outcome after impacted mandibular third molar surgery with the use of autologous platelet-rich fibrin: a randomized controlled clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 73:1042-1049 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2014.11.013
  8. Chen YW, Lee CT, Hum L, Chuang SK (2017) Effect of flap design on periodontal healing after impacted third molar extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46:363-372
  9. Lee CT, Hum L, Chen YW (2016) The effect of regenerative periodontal therapy in preventing periodontal defects after the extraction of third molars: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc 147:709-719 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2016.03.005
  10. Karapataki S, Hugoson A, Falk H, Laurell L, Kugelberg CF (2000) Healing following GTR treatment of intrabony defects distal to mandibular 2nd molars using resorbable and non-resorbable barriers. J Clin Periodontol 27:333-340 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051x.2000.027005333.x
  11. Barboza EP, Stutz B, Ferreira VF, Carvalho W (2010) Guided bone regeneration using nonexpanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes in preparation for dental implant placements-a report of 420 cases. Implant Dent 19:2-7 https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181cda72c
  12. Barber HD, Lignelli J, Smith BM, Bartee BK (2007) Using a dense PTFE membrane without primary closure to achieve bone and tissue regeneration. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65:748-752 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2006.10.042
  13. Kim SG et al (2016) Comparison of unprocessed silk cocoon and silk cocoon middle layer membranes for guided bone regeneration. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 38:11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-016-0057-1
  14. Jo YY et al (2017) Bone regeneration is associated with the concentration of tumour necrosis factor-alpha induced by sericin released from a silk mat. Sci Rep 7:15589 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15687-w
  15. Kweon H et al (2017) In vivo bone regeneration ability of different layers of natural silk cocoon processed using an eco-friendly method. Macromol Res 25:806-816 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13233-017-5085-x
  16. Ha YY, Park YW, Kweon H, Jo YY, Kim SG (2014) Comparison of the physical properties and in vivo bioactivities of silkworm-cocoon-derived silk membrane, collagen membrane, and polytetrafluoroethylene membrane for guided bone regeneration. Macromol Res 22:1018-1023 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13233-014-2138-2
  17. Corinaldesi G, Lizio G, Badiali G, Morselli-Labate AM, Marchetti C (2011) Treatment of intrabony defects after impacted mandibular third molar removal with bioabsorbable and non-resorbable membranes. J Periodontol 82:1404-1413 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2011.100466
  18. Pecora G, Celletti R, Davarpanoh M, Covani U, Etienne D (1993) The effects of guided tissue regeneration on healing after impacted mandibular thirdmolar surgery: 1-year results. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 13:396-407
  19. Barbato L et al (2016) Effect of surgical intervention for removal of mandibular third molar on periodontal healing of adjacent mandibular second molar: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. J Periodontol 87:291-302 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2015.150363
  20. Nayak S, Dey T, Naskar D, Kundu SC (2013) The promotion of osseointegration of titanium surfaces by coating with silk protein sericin. Biomaterials 34:2855-2864 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.01.019
  21. Sahota J, Bhatia A, Gupta M, Singh V, Soni J, Soni R (2017) Reliability of orthopantomography and cone-beam computed tomography in presurgical implant planning: a clinical study. J Contemp Dent Pract 18:665-669 https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2103
  22. Shahidi S, Zamiri B, Abolvardi M, Akhlaghian M, Paknahad M (2018) Comparison of dental panoramic radiography and CBCT for measuring vertical bone height in different horizontal locations of posterior mandibular alveolar process. J Dent (Shiraz) 19:83-91
  23. Luangchana P, Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri S, Kiattavorncharoen S, Jirajariyavej B (2015) Accuracy of linear measurements using cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in dental implant treatment planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30:1287-1294 https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4073

Cited by

  1. Comparison of the Physical Properties and in vivo Bioactivities of Flatwise-Spun Silk Mats and Cocoon-Derived Silk Mats for Guided Bone Regeneration vol.28, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13233-020-8026-z
  2. Treatment of Osseous Defects after Mandibular Third Molar Removal with a Resorbable Alloplastic Grafting Material: A Case Series with 1- to 2-Year Follow-Up vol.13, pp.20, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13204688
  3. Sericin for Tissue Engineering vol.10, pp.23, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10238457
  4. Soluble fraction from silk mat induced bone morphogenic protein in RAW264.7 cells vol.41, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.7852/ijie.2020.41.2.51
  5. The Effect of Sericin on Bone Regeneration in a Streptozotocin-Induced Type I Diabetes Animal Model vol.11, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041369
  6. Toll-like receptor and silk sericin for tissue engineering vol.42, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.7852/ijie.2021.42.1.1