A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Histomorphometric evaluation of implants coated with enamel or dentine derived fluoride-substituted apatite. | LitMetric

Histomorphometric evaluation of implants coated with enamel or dentine derived fluoride-substituted apatite.

J Mater Sci Mater Med

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Cukurova University, Ağiz Diş Cene Hastaliklari ve Cerrahisi Anabilim Dali, Balcali, 01330 Yuregir, Adana, Turkey.

Published: January 2008

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare osseous healing characteristics of titanium implants coated with enamel-derived fluoride-substituted apatite (EFSA) or dentin-derived fluoride-substituted apatite (DFSA).

Methods: Fluoride-substituted apatite was derived from extracted human teeth with calcination method at 850 degrees C. DFSA and EFSA were separated and carefully ground with a blade grinder. Twenty-four titanium implants were prepared from a 99.99% pure titanium bar. EFSA and DFSA powders were sprayed separately on implants. As control group, unsprayed and sandblasted pure titanium implants were used. Eight adult rams were used in the study. One EFSA coated, 1 DFSA coated and 1 control implants were placed into right tibia of each rams. The rams were sacrificed after 6 months of healing. Undecalcified sections were prepared according to Donath's method and histomorphometric evaluation of implants was made.

Results: The mean bone contact percentage of DFSA-coated, EFSA-coated and control implants was 89.88%+/-2.34, 70.19%+/-13.11 and 53.12%+/-5.76 respectively. This study suggests that DFSA-coated implants achieved better bone contact than EFSA-coated implants (P<0.05). Also study groups presented better bone contact than control group (P<0.05).

Conclusions: The results of this study show that although DFSA-coated implants achieved better bone contact, both DFSA and EFSA can be considered as appropriate coating materials.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10856-007-3167-6DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

fluoride-substituted apatite
16
titanium implants
12
implants
10
histomorphometric evaluation
8
evaluation implants
8
implants coated
8
pure titanium
8
control implants
8
bone contact
8
coated
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!