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: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
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
Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess in a multi-modular manner the bone healing 1 year post root-end surgery (RES) with leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (LPRF) and Bio-Gide® (BG; Geistlich Pharma North America, Inc., Princeton, USA) as an occlusive membrane.
Materials And Methods: A randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) of RES +/- LPRF and +/- BG was performed. The follow-up until 1 year post RES was performed by means of ultrasound imaging (UI), periapical radiographs (PR), and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Results: From the 50 included patients, 6 dropped-out during follow-up. For the 44 assessed patients (34 with UI and 42 with PR and CBCT), there was no evidence (p > 0.05) for an effect of LRPF, neither on UI measurements nor on CBCT assessments. On the contrary, there was an indication for a better outcome with BG. UI presented significant shorter healing time for the bony crypt surface (p = 0.014) and cortical opening (p = 0.006) for the groups with BG. The qualitative CBCT assessment for the combined scores of the apical area and cortical plane was significantly higher for BG (p = 0.01 and 0.02). The quantitative CBCT measurement for bone healing after 1 year was lower with BG (p = 0.019), as well as the percentage of non-zero values (p = 0.026), irrespective of the preoperative lesion size and type. Furthermore, UI seemed to be safer for frequent follow-up during the early postoperative stage (0-3 months), whereas CBCT gave more accurate results 1 year post RES. Amongst the assessors, the qualitative PR analysis was inconsistent for a favorable outcome 1 year post RES with LPRF (p = 0.11 and p = 0.023), but consistent for BG (p = 0.024 and p = 0.023).
Conclusions: There was no evidence for improvement of bone healing when RES was applied with LPRF in comparison with RES without LPRF. However, RES with BG gave evidence for a better outcome than RES without BG.
Clinical Relevance: The addition of an occlusive membrane rather than an autologous platelet concentrate improved bone regeneration 1 year post RES significantly, irrespective of the assessment device applied. The accuracy of PR assessment is questionable.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03309-1 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!