ABSTRACT
Introdução: a evolução das técnicas de reconstrução alveolar e dos biomateriais na regeneração óssea guiada (ROG), vêm trazendo consigo o desenvolvimento de novas membranas com diferentes características e propriedades. Objetivo: este trabalho tem como objetivo reunir dados das membranas utilizadas em procedimentos de ROG, presentes no mercado nacional, para facilitar ao clínico a escolha de um biomaterial que seja adequado ao procedimento planejado e com um desempenho favorável para a regeneração. Metodologia: foram incluiÌdas 30 membranas para ROG registradas e regulamentadas pela AgeÌncia Nacional de VigilaÌncia SanitaÌria (ANVISA). As empresas fabricantes foram contatadas para fornecer as informaçoÌes dos seus respectivos produtos. Resultados: 30 membranas foram encontradas e tabuladas. ApoÌs a anaÌlise das informaçoÌes obtidas pelos fabricantes, as mesmas foram classificadas nos seguintes itens: nome, empresa fabricante, origem, tempo de bioreabsorção, possibilidade de exposição ao meio bucal, diâmetro dos orifícios e apresentação. Discussão: as propriedades e características específicas de cada membrana podem determinar diferentes resultados, sendo importante para o profissional conhecer essas diferenças para selecionar os materiais mais indicados aos procedimentos de ROG de acordo com os objetivos de cada caso. Dessa forma, os resultados podem ser previsíveis e atender da melhor forma possível as expectativas do tratamento com embasamento científico. ConclusaÌo: o presente estudo tabulou 30 membranas quanto as suas principais caracteriÌsticas, visando orientar os profissionais da sauÌde na seleção da membrana mais adequada para alcançar seus objetivos no tratamento da ROG.
Introduction: the evolution of alveolar reconstruction techniques and biomaterials in guided bone regeneration (GBR), have brought with it the development of new membranes with different characteristics and properties. Objective: this study aims to gather data from the membranes used for ROG procedures present in the national market, to facilitate the clinician to choose a biomaterial that is suitable for the planned procedure and with a favorable performance for regeneration. Metodology: 30 membranes were included, registered and regulated by ANVISA. The manufacturing companies were contacted to provide information on their respective products. Results: 30 membranes were found and tabulated after analyzing the information obtained by the manufacturers, they were classified in the following items: name, manufacturer company, origin, time of resorption, possibility of exposure to the oral environment, diameter of the holes and presentation. Discussion: the specific properties and characteristics of each membrane can determine different results and, therefore, it is important for the professional to know these differences in order to select the most suitable materials for the GBR procedures according to the objectives of each case. In this way, the results can be predictable and best meet the expectations of the treatment with a correct scientific basis. Conclusion: the present study tabulated 30 membranes as to their main characteristics, aiming to guide health professionals in the selection of the most appropriate membrane to achieve their goals in the treatment of GBR.
Subject(s)
Bone Regeneration , Guided Tissue Regeneration , Membranes, Artificial , ReviewABSTRACT
A utilização de membranas em procedimentos de ROG é um procedimento comum e representa um recurso oportuno para promover adequado volume ósseo. Contudo, na maioria das vezes, elas são limitadas quanto à exposição ao meio bucal. Para casos em que exista a necessidade de exposição, as membranas densas de politetrafl uoretileno (d-PTFE) estão indicadas. Este trabalho relata a experiência dos autores com 70 casos de ROG para colocação de implantes, utilizando membranas de d-PTFE (Lumina PTFE) com exposição ao meio bucal, e apresenta um caso clínico como exemplo do protocolo cirúrgico utilizado. As membranas foram utilizadas na maxila (n=22/31%), mandíbula (n=15/21%) e ambas as arcadas (n=33/47%), sendo empregados os biomateriais Bio-Oss (n=25/35%), Osteogen (n=14/20%), Lumina Bone (n=8/11%) ou nenhum biomaterial (n=23/33%). Extrações dentárias representam a maioria dos casos (n=57/81%), e todos os pacientes que receberam implantes imediatos (n=31/44%) também receberam simultaneamente algum biomaterial. Nenhum dos casos apresentou complicações cirúrgicas ou foi necessário procedimento adicional para ganho de volume ósseo. Uma discussão sobre as características, vantagens e desvantagens das membranas d-PTFE em relação a outras membranas para ROG também é apresentada.
The use of membranes for GBR procedures is common and represents an excellent chance to establish adequate bone volume. However, for cases where the barrier needs to be exposed, d-polytetrafluorethylene membranes (d-PTFE) are recommended. This paper reports the authors experience with 70 cases of GBR for implant placement using the Lumina PTFE membrane exposed to the buccal environment and still presenting a clinical case protocol description. The membranes were placed in the maxilla (n=22/31%), mandible (n=15/21%), or both jaws (n=33/47%) with associated biomaterials such as Bio-Oss (n=25/35%), Osteogen (n=14/20%), and Lumina Bone (n=8/11%) or none (n=23/33%). Reasons for implant placement included tooth extraction (n=57/81%) and all patients receiving immediate dental implants (n=31/44%) had a simultaneous biomaterial. No surgical complications were observed or an additional procedure needed for bone volume gain. A discussion regarding the characteristics, advantages, and drawbacks of d-PTFE membranes in relation to other GBR membranes is presented.
Subject(s)
Humans , Female , Young Adult , Dental Implants , Guided Tissue Regeneration , Membranes, Artificial , Tooth ExtractionABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The forehead flap is the workhorse in nasal reconstruction, which provides a similar skin color, texture, structure, and reliability. There are some disadvantages, including donor site morbidities, 2- or 3-stage operations, and postoperative management after initial flap transfer. Furthermore, there has been little attention to the exposed raw surface wound, after the first stage of an operation. This article describes the authors??modification to overcome this problem, using artificial collagen membrane. METHODS: An Artificial collagen membrane is composed of an outer silicone membrane and an inner collagen layer. After a forehead flap elevation, the expected raw surface was covered by an artificial collagen membrane with 5-0 nylon suture. A simple dressing, which had been applied to the site, was changed every 2 or 3 days in an outpatient unit. At 3 weeks postprocedure, a second stage operation was performed. RESULTS: With biosynthetic protection of the raw surface, there were no wound problems, such as infection or flap loss. Thus, the patient was satisfied due to an effortless management of the wound and a reduction in pain. CONCLUSION: The application of an artificial collagen membrane to the raw under-surface of the flap could be a comfortable and a protective choice for this procedure.
Subject(s)
Humans , Bandages , Collagen , Forehead , Membranes , Membranes, Artificial , Nose Deformities, Acquired , Nylons , Outpatients , Silicones , Skin , Surgical Flaps , Sutures , Tissue DonorsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The forehead flap is the workhorse in nasal reconstruction, which provides a similar skin color, texture, structure, and reliability. There are some disadvantages, including donor site morbidities, 2- or 3-stage operations, and postoperative management after initial flap transfer. Furthermore, there has been little attention to the exposed raw surface wound, after the first stage of an operation. This article describes the authors??modification to overcome this problem, using artificial collagen membrane. METHODS: An Artificial collagen membrane is composed of an outer silicone membrane and an inner collagen layer. After a forehead flap elevation, the expected raw surface was covered by an artificial collagen membrane with 5-0 nylon suture. A simple dressing, which had been applied to the site, was changed every 2 or 3 days in an outpatient unit. At 3 weeks postprocedure, a second stage operation was performed. RESULTS: With biosynthetic protection of the raw surface, there were no wound problems, such as infection or flap loss. Thus, the patient was satisfied due to an effortless management of the wound and a reduction in pain. CONCLUSION: The application of an artificial collagen membrane to the raw under-surface of the flap could be a comfortable and a protective choice for this procedure.