【图文】3-2玻璃及玻璃的结构_百度文库
赠送免券下载特权
10W篇文档免费专享
部分付费文档8折起
每天抽奖多种福利
两大类热门资源免费畅读
续费一年阅读会员，立省24元！
3-2玻璃及玻璃的结构
阅读已结束，下载本文到电脑
登录百度文库，专享文档复制特权，积分每天免费拿！
你可能喜欢Journal list menu
Log in to Wiley Online Library
Email or Customer ID
Change Password
Old Password
New Password
Very Strong
Your password has been changed
Create a new account
Email or Customer ID
Forgot your password?
Enter your email address below. If your address has been previously registered, you will
receive an email with instructions on how to reset your password. If you don't receive an email,
you should register as a new user
Email or Customer ID
Please check your email for your password reset instructions.
Request Username
Can't sign in? Forgot your username?
Enter your email address below and we will send you your username
Email or Customer ID
If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your usernameThis page uses JavaScript to progressively load the article content as a user scrolls.
Screen reader users, click the load entire article button to bypass dynamically loaded article content.
&RIS&(for EndNote, Reference Manager, ProCite)
&RefWorks Direct Export
& Citation Only
& Citation and Abstract
JavaScript is disabled on your browser.
Please enable JavaScript to use all the features on this page.
JavaScript is disabled on your browser.
Please enable JavaScript to use all the features on this page. This page uses JavaScript to progressively load the article content as a user scrolls. Click the View full text link to bypass dynamically loaded article content.
1997, Pages 213–243Edited By Giuseppe D'Alessio and James F. Riordan
7 – Evolutionary Reconstructions in the Ribonuclease Family, , , , , , , , , , , * Department of Chemistry, ETH, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland& Department of Chemistry, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611&D Institute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, 128 20 Prague 2 Czech Republic& PGEC&Plant Gene Expression Center, Albany, California 94710This chapter provides an overview of the ribonuclease (RNases) family. RNases of the bovine pancreatic superfamily play a central role in the development of ideas and technologies to study protein structure and catalysis. This is because RNase is small, present in large amounts in the pancreas of ruminants, stable under a wide range of conditions, and therefore amenable to full chemical analysis. It was among the first proteins to be sequenced, the first protein to be examined by NMR spectroscopy, and the first to be unfolded and refolded in the laboratory. This chapter also discusses the use of protein engineering for understanding the evolution. It explains concepts related to experimental paleomolecular geobiology. It also describes collection of additional seminal RNase sequences from recently diverging artiodactyls. An overview of reconstructing evolution of biomolecular behavior in the RNase superfamily is also presented in this chapter. The chapter elaborates in detail about the repair of damaged pseudogenes by gene conversion. The chapter concludes with a discussion on physiological functions of seminal RNase.
No articles found.
This article has not been cited.
No articles found.MR: Matches for: MR=2659757
MathSciNet bibliographic data
Ondreját, Martin Stochastic nonlinear wave equations in local Sobolev spaces.
Electron. J. Probab.
(2010), no. 33, .
For users without a
, Relay Station allows linking from MR numbers in online mathematical literature
directly to electronic journals and original articles.
Subscribers receive the added value of full MathSciNet reviews.
Username/Password Subscribers
American Mathematical Society
201 Charles Street
Providence, RI<META NAME="DC.Title" CONTENT="Gore-tex&#174; versus resolut adapt&#174; GTR membranes with perioglas&#174; in periodontal regeneration
<META NAME="DC.Description" CONTENT="Background: Successful reconstruction of periodontal tissues destroyed due to periodontitis has been an evasive goal for the periodontists. Several GTR materials and bone grafts have been tried with varied success rates. Aims and Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of non-resorbable (GoreTex&#174; ) and bioabsorbable (Resolut Adapt&#174; ) membranes in combination with bioactive glass (PerioGlas&#174; ) in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects. Materials and Methods: Ten chronic periodontitis patients having bilateral matched intrabony defects were treated with non-resorbable membrane (GoreTex&#174; ) and bioactive glass or the bioresorbable membrane (Resolut Adapt&#174; ) and bioactive glass in split mouth design. Clinical parameters like plaque index, gingival index, probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level, and gingival recession were recorded at baseline and 9 months post-operatively. Similarly, radiographic (linear CADIA) and intra-surgical (re-entry) measurements were evaluated at baseline and 9 months post-operatively). Results: Both the membrane groups showed clinically and statistically significant improvement in clinical parameters i.e., reduction in probing depth (4.6 &#177; 1.4 mm) vs. 3.7 &#177; 1.3 mm) and gain in clinical attachment level (4.6 + 1.6 vs. 3.2 &#177; 1.5 mm) for non-resorbable and bioresorbable membrane groups, respectively. Similar trend was observed when radiographical and intra-surgical (re-entry) measurements were evaluated and compared, pre- and post-operatively at 9 months. However, on comparison between the two groups, the difference was statistically not significant. Conclusion: Both the barrier membranes i.e., non-resorbable (Gore-Tex&#174; ) and bioabsorbable (Resolut Adapt&#174; ) membranes in combination with bioactive glass (PerioGlas&#174; ) were equally effective in enhancing the periodontal regeneration.">
&|&Users Online: 867&&&
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2012& |& Volume
|& Issue : 4& |& Page : 406-411
Gore-tex&#174; versus resolut adapt&#174; GTR membranes with perioglas&#174; in periodontal regeneration
1&Department of Periodontology and Implantology, Subharti Dental College and Hospital, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India2&Department of Periodontology and Implantology, Bapuji Dental College and Hospital, Davangere, Karnataka, India
Date of Web Publication20-Feb-2013
Correspondence Address:Amit
WadhawanB 71, Pocket - 1, Phase - 3, Sector - 82, KendriyaVihar - 2,Noida, UttarPradesh IndiaSource of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: NoneDOI:&10.7X.107427
Background: Successful reconstruction of periodontal tissues destroyed due to periodontitis has been an evasive goal for the periodontists. Several GTR materials and bone grafts have been tried with varied success rates. Aims and Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of non-resorbable (GoreTex&#174; ) and bioabsorbable (Resolut Adapt&#174; ) membranes in combination with bioactive glass (PerioGlas&#174; ) in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects. Materials and Methods: Ten chronic periodontitis patients having bilateral matched intrabony defects were treated with non-resorbable membrane (GoreTex&#174; ) and bioactive glass or the bioresorbable membrane (Resolut Adapt&#174; ) and bioactive glass in split mouth design. Clinical parameters like plaque index, gingival index, probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level, and gingival recession were recorded at baseline and 9 months post-operatively. Similarly, radiographic (linear CADIA) and intra-surgical (re-entry) measurements were evaluated at baseline and 9 months post-operatively). Results: Both the membrane groups showed clinically and statistically significant improvement in clinical parameters i.e., reduction in probing depth (4.6 &#177; 1.4 mm) vs. 3.7 &#177; 1.3 mm) and gain in clinical attachment level (4.6 + 1.6 vs. 3.2 &#177; 1.5 mm) for non-resorbable and bioresorbable membrane groups, respectively. Similar trend was observed when radiographical and intra-surgical (re-entry) measurements were evaluated and compared, pre- and post-operatively at 9 months. However, on comparison between the two groups, the difference was statistically not significant. Conclusion: Both the barrier membranes i.e., non-resorbable (Gore-Tex&#174; ) and bioabsorbable (Resolut Adapt&#174; ) membranes in combination with bioactive glass (PerioGlas&#174; ) were equally effective in enhancing the periodontal regeneration.Keywords:&Bioactive glass, guided tissue regeneration, periodontal intrabony defects
How to cite this article:Wadhawan A, Gowda TM, Mehta DS. Gore-tex&#174; versus resolut adapt&#174; GTR membranes with perioglas&#174; in periodontal regeneration
. Contemp Clin Dent -11
How to cite this URL:Wadhawan A, Gowda TM, Mehta DS. Gore-tex&#174; versus resolut adapt&#174; GTR membranes with perioglas&#174; in periodontal regeneration
. Contemp Clin Dent [serial online] 2012 [cited&2018 Jun 10];3:406-11. Available from:&
The ultimate goal of periodontal therapy is the regeneration of periodontal tissues lost due to the periodontal diseases. Several methods have been used to regenerate the periodontal tissues including bone grafts, GTR membranes, and the enamel matrix derivatives. Early animal , and human studies , suggested that the predictable restitution of the attachment apparatus can be accomplished by using a treatment, which is based on the principle of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) by using the non-resorbable and bioabsorbable barrier membranes (Nygaard - Ostby et al. 2010).
The expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membrane is the most widely documented non-resorbable barrier membrane in GTR therapy. ,,, This porous-non-resorbable membrane is more commonly known as Gore-Tex (W.L. Gore and ASSOC., Flagstaff, Ariz), and features tw
i) open microstructured collar and ii) partially occlusive device, to address the specific needs. This membrane is biocompatible and has been proved to be safe and effective in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects. Through this membrane possesses ideal characteristics of a barrier, a second surgical procedure is required for its retrieval.The bioabsorbable membranes are the second generation GTR membranes and were developed to avoid the second surgical procedure to remove the barrier. ,,, These GTR devices fall into two broad categories, natural products (collagen membrane) and the synthetic (copolymers) materials like Guidor,&#174; (Guidor Co, Bensenville, IL), Vicryl periodontal mesh (Johnson and Johnson Ethicon), Resolut Adapt&#174; and the Atrisorb&#174; GTR barrier. The Resolut Adapt&#174; regenerative material (W.L. Gore and ASSOC, Flagstaff, Ariz) is a composite consisting of degradable polymers of polygycolic and polylactic acid (PRA/PLA Copolymer). It is also supplied with polycaprolate-coated polyglycolic acid (Resolut) sutures. Histologically, it has been demonstrated that this device retains its structure for 4 months and gets resorbed completely within 5-6 months.
Bioactive ceramic glass has been used in medical practice since 1984. Recently, a particulate form of bioactive glass was introduced to the dental profession as an alloplastic bone graft material for the treatment of periodontal infrabony defects. These materials are biocompatible and osteoconductive in nature. However, histologically, it showed evidence of osteoinductive in nature inducing the new cementum formation and attachment, thus preventing apical down growth of junctional epithelium. Clinical studies have shown that the bioactive glass is as effective as DFDBA and other graft materials in the treatment of periodontal infrabony defects. , There are few studies reported in the literature wherein the efficacy of non-resorbable or bioabsorbable membranes alone or in combination with bone graft materials (autogenous, DFDBA, tricalcium phosphates, or bioactive glass) were evaluated and compared in periodontal regeneration. ,,,,,,,,, However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no study reported in the literature comparing the efficacy of non-resorbable (Gore-Tex&#174; ) membrane and the bioabsorbable (Resolut Adapt&#174; ) barrier in combination with bioactive glass, in the treatment of periodont hence, present study was undertaken.Patient selection Ten patients (3 males, 7 females) aged 25-55 years (mean age 38 &#177; 2.5 years) with generalized chronic periodontitis were selected for this clinical study. All the selected patients displayed bilateral--matched intrabony defects with probing depth of &#8805; 6 mm and radiographic evidence of angular bone loss.Inclusion criteria included: i) All patients having non-contributory medical history, ii) no history of antibiotic therapy in the last 6 months, iii) no history of periodontal therapy in the last 3 months, and iv) patient showing optimum compliance in oral hygiene maintenance during the phase-1 (pre-surgical) therapy. Exclusion criteria included: i) Patients with compromised immune system, ii) patients taking drugs known to cause gingival enlargement, iii) pregnant and lactating mothers, and iv) smokers.The purpose of investigation and the potential benefits and risks of the materials used and procedures to be performed were explained, and each patient signed a written consent form indicating their agreement to participate in the study. The study protocol and consent forms were approved by the institutional ethical committee and review board.Pre-surgical (phase-1) therapy was performed on all patients, which consisted of motivation and education, oral hygiene instructions, scaling and root planing, and occlusal adjustment when indicated. Re-evaluation of the tissue response and the patients' plaque control was reinforced 2-4 weeks later.
Only those patients showing good compliance in plaque control during the pre-surgical phase were selected for the study: 10 matched pairs of intrabony defects were found suitable for the study. Study design Patients demonstrating satisfactory response were considered for the study. In the selected patients, random allocation of experimental site A and experimental site B was done by flip of a coin, and thus a split mouth design with 10 sites in each group was formulated. Exp. site-A received non-resorbable (Gore-Tex&#174; ) membrane + bioactive glass (PerioGlas&#174; ), whereas Exp. site-B was treated with bioresorbable (Resolut Adapt&#174; ) membrane + bioactive glass (PerioGlas&#174; ).Clinical parameters used in this study include: 1) Plaque index (PI); gingival index (GI); probing depth (PD); clini (CAL) and the gingival recession (GR). Radiographic evaluation was done using linear CADIA, whereas the intra-surgical (re-entry) measurements were recorded to evaluate the defect fill and defect resolution. The ancillary parameters like PI and GI were recorded at baseline, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months, whereas the main clinical parameters like PD, CAL, GR, and radiographic and intra-surgical evaluation was performed at baseline and 9 months post-operatively. All the surgical procedures and calibration (measurements) were performed and recorded by single surgeon in order to avoid inter-examiner variability. Surgical procedure Adequate anesthesia was achieved by administering 2% xylocaine HCl with adrenaline 1:80,000. After giving intra-sulcular incisions with Bard Parker knife (blade no. 12), the full-thickness mucoperiosteal flaps were reflected using the periosteal elevators. Complete debridement of the defect was done, and a thorough root planing was carried out using the universal (4-R and 4-L) and Gracey (1-14) curettes] . The surgical area was thoroughly irrigated with saline, surgical templates were made, and pre-suturing
was done.Figure 1: Measurement of defect from CEJ to the defectDefects in both the sites were filled with bioactive glass (PerioGlas&#174; - NovaBone Products, LLC, Alachua, FI, USA) granules. The required amount of PerioGlas&#174; granules were transferred to dappen dish and moistened with saline, which was then transferred to the defect site with the help of scoop of a Cumine scaler (Hu Friedy, USA), filling the defect to approximate level of crest of the remaining osseous walls.The membranes were trimmed according to the template size so as to cover the defect and 1-2 mm past the osseous defect margins. Experimental site-A received non-resorbable (Gore-Tex&#174; membrane, W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. Flagstaff, AZ, USA), whereas the site - B received bioresorbable membrane (Resolut Adapt&#174; - W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. Flagstaff, AZ, USA) . In both the places, the membranes fully covered the grafted sites, and the pre-sutured mucoperiosteal flaps were repositioned, sutured, and covered with the periodontal dressing (Coe-pak, GC America).Figure 2: Resolut Adapt&#174; Regenerative membrane to the defectAll patients were prescribed antibiotics (Amoxycillin 500 mg 8 hourly for 5 days) and analgesics (Ibuprofen 400 mg TDS for 3 days). Chlorhexidine mouthwash (0.2%) was advised twice-daily, and all required post-operative instructions were given to the patient.After 1 week, the periodontal dressing and sutures were removed, and the area was thoroughly irrigated with saline. The re-call appointments were made after 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months post-operatively. The non-resorbable membrane was removed after 4-6 weeks . Figure 3: Gore &#8211; Tex&#174; Regenerative membrane removed Surgical re-entry Nine months post-operatively, the surgical re-entry was performed to record the intra-surgical measurements and to evaluate the bone-fill and defect resolution. After administering the local anesthesia, sulcular incisions were given, mucoperiosteal flaps were reflected, and soft fibrous tissue was removed to facilitate the intra-surgical measurements . Thorough saline irrigation was done, the flaps were sutured back, and periodontal dressing was placed to be removed after 1 week.Figure 4: Rentry after 9 months of Expt. site &#8211; B Interpretation of radiographs All the I.O.P.A radiographs were taken by Long cone projection technique. The I.O.P.A. radiographs were digitalized 4.1 pixel images using Sony DSC - S90 digital camera (Japan) and were then analyzed using the computer-assisted image analysis software. Statistical analysis After recording the clinical, radiographic, and intra-surgical parameters, the values were subjected to statistical analysis like paired 't' test, unpaired 't' test, and the Mann-Whitney test. A 'P' value of 0.05 or less was considered for the statistical significance.Among the ancillary indices, the mean plaque and gingival scores were reduced significantly ( P &#60; 0.001) in both the experimental groups when baseline scores were compared with the 9 months data .Table 1: Ancillary clinical parametersThe probing depth decreased from baseline (7.7 &#177; 1.4 mm) to 3.1 &#177; 0.9 mm with a mean difference of 4.6 &#177; 1.4 mm for site - A, which was statistically highly significant ( P &#60; 0.001). In site - B, the probing depth reduced by 3.9 &#177; 1.5 mm, which was also statistically highly significant. However, on intergroup comparison, the difference of 0.7 mm was statistically not significant .Table 2: Clinical parametersThe clinical attachment level (CAL) gain was recorded 4.6 &#177; 1.6 mm for site - A at 9 month post-operatively, which was statistically highly significant ( P &#60; 0.001). Similarly, in site - B, the CAL gain was 3.8 + 2.5 mm for site - B at 9 month post-operatively, which was also statistically highly significant ( P &#60; 0.001). However, on intergroup comparison, the difference of 0.8 mm was statistically not significant. .The radiographic bone fill and defect resolution was recorded, and a statistically significant ( P &#60; 0.001) improvement was observed in both the groups. However, in intergroup comparison, the difference was statistically non-significant .Table 3: Radiographic parametersOn re-entry procedure, at 9 months post-operatively, the improvement in intra-surgical measurements was highly significant ( P &#60; 0.001) in both the groups. However, on inter-group comparison, the difference was statistically non-significant .Table 4: Intra&#8209;surgical (Re&#8209;Entry) parametersRegeneration of periodontal osseous defects is the real challenge in periodontal therapy. In earlier studies, ,,,, several bone graft materials and barrier membranes alone or in combination have been tried for achieving periodontal regeneration. However, the treatment outcome showed that the combination therapy i.e., GTR membrane + bone graft was more effective and predictable treatment modality than the GTR membrane or bone graft alone. In most of these studies, GTR membrane was combined with allograft (DFDBA), xenograft (Bio-Oss), hydroxyapatite, or the enamel matrix proteins (EMD). However, in recent years, some evidence has been provided that the bioactive glass is also capable of supporting the regenerative healing of the periodontal osseous defects. ,,, Hence, the present study was undertaken to evaluate and compare the efficacy of two GTR membranes i.e., non-resorbable (Gore-Tex&#174; ) vs. bioresorbable (Resolut Adapt&#174; ) membranes in combination with the bioactive glass (PerioGlas&#174; ) as bone graft material in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects.The clinical soft tissue measurements have played a critical role in the evaluation of regenerative procedures. The advantage of this technique is that it provides clinically important information regarding probing depth reduction and relative gain in clinical attachment levels. In the present study, both the groups showed significant ( P &#60; 0.001) improvement ( P &#60; 0.001) in clinical parameters like probing depth reduction and gain in clinical attachment level when 9 months post-treatment follow-up results were compared with the baseline data, thus signifying the role of GTR material in the periodontal regeneration. The GTR membrane successfully promote the re-growth of the de
however, there is substantial variation in the clinical predictability, degree of efficacy, and histological outcomes.
However, on intergroup comparison, the probing depth reduction in Gore-Tex&#174; membrane group (4.6 &#177; 1.4 mm) was comparable to that of bioresorbable (Resolut Adapt&#174; ) membrane group (3.9 &#177; 1.5 mm), and the difference between the two groups was statistically non-significant. Similarly, the difference in attachment gain in both the groups (4.6 &#177; 1.6 mm vs. 3.8 &#177; 2.5 mm) was not significant at 9 months post-operatively. This mean attachment gain complied exactly with the results in the previous studies. ,,,,, The radiographic analysis is one of the valid parameters to demonstrate the effectiveness of regenerative procedures. It has played an important role in determining treatment outcome because it offers the only non-invasive method of evaluating the hard tissue response to therapy. In this study, the radiographic analysis was made through the linear CADIA (Computer-Assisted Densitometric Image Analysis), which is an approach developed to combine linear radiographic measurements with CADIA. The results showed comparable defect fill of 36.9% and 37.2% for non-resorbable (Gore-Tex&#174; ) and bioabsorbable (Resolut Adapt&#174; ) membrane groups, respectively, when 9 month results were compared with the baseline data. Similar trend was observed when change in alveolar crest height and the defect resolutions were compared. These results are consistent with the previous observations made by other authors. ,,,,,,,,, The re-entry surgery is among the most common methods used to evaluate the periodontal regeneration. In the present study, there were significant changes in the defect fill between baseline and 9 months intra-surgical data in both the test groups (4.0 &#177; 1.8 mm vs. 3.5 &#177; 1.8 mm). However, when both the groups were compared at 9 months, the difference was non-significant. Similar trend was observed when alveolar bone crest height and defect resolution were compared between the two groups. These results are in agreement with the earlier studies reporting significant improvement in regenerative outcome when these GTR materials where compared. , The significant improvement in the treatment outcome may also be attributed to the use of bioactive glass as a defect filler and regenerative material in the periodontal regeneration. Studies have shown that treatment of periodontal intrabony defects with bioactive glass leads to significantly greater gain in clinical attachment level and better defect fill. This was also demonstrated in some histological studies wherein the bioactive glass induced significant increase in newly-formed cementum and attachment gain.
The bioactive properties guide and promote osteogenesis, allowing rapid and quick formation of new bone. In conclusion, in this split-mouth clinical study under the given constraints, the combination of bioactive glass (PerioGlas&#174; ) with GTR membranes e-PTFE (Gore-Tex&#174; ) and PLA/PGA copolymer (Resolut Adapt&#174; ) showed enhanced clinical outcome. However, on comparison between the groups, the results obtained from the experimental site A were slightly better than experimental site B, although it was statistically not significant. Further long-term studies are required with larger sample size to determine the efficacy of membranes in combination with bioactive glass that could explain the benefits of this treatment modality in periodontal regeneration.
Nyman S, Gottlow J, Karring T, Lindhe J. The regeneration potential of the periodontal ligament. An experimental studies in monkeys. J Clin Periodontol -65.&&&&&&
Aukhil I, Pettersson E, Suggs C. Guided tissue regeneration. An experimental procedure in beagle dogs. J Periodontol -34.&&[]&&&&
Nyman S, Lindhe J, Karring T, Rylander H. New attachment following surgical treatment of human periodontal disease. J Clin Periodontol -6.&&&&&&
Gottlow J, Nyman S, Lindhe J, Karring T, Wennstr&#246;m J. New attachment in human periodontium by guided tissue regeneration. J Clin Periodontol -16.&&&&&&
Nygaard - Ostby P, Bakke V, Nesdal O, Susin C, Wikesjo UM. Periodontal healing following reconstructive surgery effect of guided tissue regeneration using a bioresorbable barrier device when combined with autogenous bone grafting: A randomized controlled trial. 10 year follow-up. J Clin Periodontol -73.&&&&&&
Caffesse RG, Mota LF, Duinones CR, Morrison EC. Clinical comparison of resorbable and non-resorbable barriers for guided periodontal tissue regeneration. J Clin Periodontol -52.&&&&&&
Christgau M, Schmalz G, Rreich E, Wenzel A. Clinical and radiographic split - mouth study on resorbable versus non-resorbable GTR membranes. J Clin Periodontol -15.&&&&&&
Teparaat T, Solt CW, Clamen LJ, Beck FM. Clinical comparison of bioabsorbable barriers with non-resorbable barriers in guided tissue regeneration in the treatment of human intrabony defects. J Periodontol -41.&&&&&&
Pretzl B, Kim TS, Holle R, Eickholz P. Long term results of guided tissue regeneration therapy with non-resorbable and bioabsorbable barriers I.V. A case series of infrabony defects after 10 years. J Periodontol 1-9.&&&&&&
Tatakis DN, Promsudthi A, Wikesjo UM. Devices for periodontal regeneration. Periodontol :59-73.&&&&&&
Becker W, Becker BE, Mellonig J, Caffesse RG, Warrer K, Caton JG, et al. A prospective multi-center study evaluating periodontal regeneration for Class II furcation invasions and intrabony defects after treatment with a bioabsorbable barrier membrane: 1 year results. J Periodontol -9.&&[]&&&&
Mengel R, Softner M, Flores-de-Jacoby L. Bioabsorbable membrane and bioactive glass in the treatment of intrabony defects in patients with generalized aggressive periodontitis - Results of a 12 month clinical and radiological study. J Periodontol -908.&&&&&&
Gaffane TE. Guided tissue regeneration using a bioabsorbable membrane: A 21 - case series. J Periodontol 8-33.&&&&&&
Pretzl B, Kim TS, Steinbrenner H, Dorfer C, Himmer K, Eikholz P. Guided tissue regeneration with bioabsorbable barriers. III 10 years results in infrabony defects. J Clin Periodontol -56.&&&&&&
Fetner AE, Hartigan MS, Low SB. Periodontal repair using PerioGlas&#174; in non-human primates. Clinical and histological observations. Compendium -8.&&[]&&&&
Karatzas S, Zavras A, Greenspan D, Amar S. Histologic observations of periodontal wound healing after treatment with PerioGlas&#174; in non-human primates. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent -99.&&&&&&
Segelnick SL, Weinberg MA. Reevaluation of initial therapy: When is the appropriate time? J Periodontol 8-601.&&&&&&
Nasr HF, Aichelmann- Reidy ME, Yukna RA. Bone and bone substitute. Periodontol :74-86.&&&&&&
Carranza FA, Takei HH, Cochran DL. Reconstructive periodontal surgery. Carranza's Clinical Periodontology. 10 th ed. New Delhi: Elsevier 2006; p. 973.&&&&&&
Garrett S. Periodontal regeneration around natural teeth. Ann Periodontol -66.&&&&&&
Bartold PM, McCulloch CA, Narayanan AS, Pitaru S. Tissue engineering: A new paradigm for periodontal regeneration based on molecular and cell biology. Periodontol :253-69.&&&&&&
Trejo PM, Weltman R, Caffesse RG. Effects of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene and polylactic acid barriers on healthy sites. J Periodontol -8.&&&&&&
Aichelmann-Reidy ME, Yukna RA. Bone replacement grafts. The bone substitutes. Dent Clin North Am -503.&&&&&&
This article has been cited by
Characterization of membranes based on cellulose acetate butyrate/poly(caprolactone)triol/doxycycline and their potential for guided bone regeneration application
Morgana Souza Marques,Karine Modolon Zepon,Fabrícia Cardoso Petronilho,Valdir Soldi,Luiz Alberto Kanis
Materials Science and Engineering: C. 5
Regenerative Medicine for Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases
L. Larsson,A.M. Decker,L. Nibali,S.P. Pilipchuk,T. Berglundh,W.V. Giannobile
Journal of Dental Research. ): 255
Biodegradable Polymer Membranes Applied in Guided Bone/Tissue Regeneration: A Review
Jiaolong Wang,Lina Wang,Ziyu Zhou,Hanjian Lai,Pan Xu,Lan Liao,Junchao Wei
Polymers. ): 115}