浓缩生长因子保存犬牙槽嵴效果的影像学评价

Radiographic evaluation of using concentrate growth factor for alveolar ridge preservation in Beagle dog

目的 :从影像角度评价浓缩生长因子(concentrate growth factors,CGF)对拔牙窝的保存效果。方法 :选择雄性Beagle犬4只,年龄为8~10个月,体重10~14 kg。拔除每只犬下颌左、右第一前磨牙和第二前磨牙,随机分配植入。实验1组植入CGF,覆盖Bio-gide膜;实验2组植入Bio-Oss,覆盖Bio-gide膜;实验3组植入CGF和Bio-Oss,覆盖Bio-gide膜;空白组不做任何处理,自然愈合。利用螺旋CT记录术后0、1、2个月时的影像,利用Simplant软件进行重建。采用SPSS13.0软件包对数据进行t检验。结果:实验组与对照组均存在牙槽嵴吸收。各组牙槽骨宽度相比,实验2组为(2.497±0.1823)mm,实验3组为(2.790±0.2230)mm,空白组为(1.800±0.2400)mm;实验2、3组与空白组之间存在显著差异(P<0.05)。各组颊侧牙槽嵴高度相比,实验1组为(4.770±0.2178)mm,实验2组为(4.927±0.4260)mm,实验3组为(5.320±1.165)mm,空白组为(3.850±0.3000)mm;实验2、3组与空白组及实验1组存在显著差异(P<0.05)。各组舌侧牙槽嵴高度相比,实验1组为(7.997±0.3846)mm,实验2组为(8.272±0.2613)mm,实验3组为(7.637±0.8049)mm,空白组为(7.530±0.6600)mm;实验组与空白组之间均无显著差异(P>0.05)。各组颊侧骨板厚度相比,术后1个月,实验2组为(1.050±0.1024)mm,实验3组为(0.7467±0.06936)mm,2组之间存在显著差异(P<0.05);术后2个月,各组之间无显著差异(P>0.05)。各组舌侧骨板厚度相比,实验2组为(1.573±0.08102)mm,实验3组为(1.320±0.3842)mm,与空白组(1.355±0.05500)mm及实验1组(1.010±0.1607)mm之间存在显著差异(P<0.05)。Micro-CT扫描结果显示,实验3组骨体积与实验1、2组存在显著差异(P<0.05)。结论:利用CGF与Bio-Oss骨粉混合进行牙槽嵴保存术的效果优于仅使用CGF,成骨方面亦是如此。

PURPOSE： To compare bone dimensional changes following extraction alone, extraction plus ridge preservation （using deproteinized boving bone mineral Bio-Oss, concentrate growth factors CGF and bioresorbable collagen membrane Bio-Gide） on radiographs. METHODS： In 4 Beagle dogs, the distal roots of the first and the second mandibular premolars were removed. The sockets in the right or the left jaw quadrant were grafted randomly with either deproteinized boring bone mineral （Bio-Oss with Bio-gide） as experimental group 2 or with concentrate growth factors （CGF with Bio-gide） as experimental group 1 or both of them （Bio-Oss plus CGF wit Bio-gide） as experimental group 3 and control group （no treament , natural healing）. Raidographic examination was taken every month for 3 months. Simplant software was used for image reconstruction, SPSS13.0 software package was used for analysis. RESULTS： CT scanning showed that there was significant difference in alveolar ridge width between experimental group 2 （2.497±0.1823）mm, experimental group 3 （2.790±0.2230）mm and control group （1.800±0.2400）mm （P〈0.05）. In buccal height, there was significant difference between experimental group 2 （4.927 ±0.4260mm）, experimental group 3 （5.320 ±1.165）mm,experimental group 1 （4.770±0.2178）mm, and control group（3.850±0.3000）mm （P〈0.05）. However, there was no significant difference between 4 groups in lingual height and in buceal thickness. Lingual bone thickness in experimental group 2 was （1.573±0.08102） mm and （1.320±0.3842）mm in experimental group 3, which had significant difference from control group （1.355±0.05500）mm and experimental group 1 （1.010 ± 0.1607）mm（P〈0.05）. CONCLUSIONS： The results suggest that alveolar preservation with Bio-Oss plus CGF is better than CGF alone.