Subject(s)
Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Mouth/anatomy & histology , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: It is unknown whether zoledronic acid (ZA) interferes with initial bone healing at implant sites. The goal of this study was to examine the effects of systemic zoledronic acid administration on osseointegration of hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated and resorbable blast material surface (RBM) implants in rabbit models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight male New Zealand rabbits (aged 6 to 12 months) were used in this study. Rabbits were randomly assigned to four groups. In group A, HA-coated implants were placed in the right tibia of seven rabbits. In group B, RBM-surface implants were placed in the right tibia of seven rabbits. In group C, HA-coated implants were placed in seven rabbits with intravenous (IV) administration of ZA. Finally, in group D, RBM-surface implants were placed in seven rabbits with IV administration of ZA. For groups C and D, IV zoledronic acid (0.1 mg/kg) was performed monthly during the entire osseointegration period. All of the rabbits were sacrificed 12 weeks after the implantation, and tibial specimens were harvested. Histomorphometric bone-to-implant contact (BIC) analysis and the data were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The highest BIC percentage was detected in group D, with a mean value of 56.73%±1.85%, as compared with 45.80%±3.77% in group C, 35.11%±0.76% in group B, and 31.14%±1.04% in group A. CONCLUSIONS: Histomorphometric analyses showed significant improvement in the osseointegration of implants in the RBM-surface ZA group compared with the HA-coated ZA group. The results of this study suggest that systemic ZA administration may improve osseointegration of titanium implants in bone.
Subject(s)
Bone Density Conservation Agents/pharmacology , Coated Materials, Biocompatible/therapeutic use , Dental Implants , Diphosphonates/pharmacology , Durapatite/therapeutic use , Imidazoles/pharmacology , Osseointegration/drug effects , Titanium , Animals , Bone Density Conservation Agents/administration & dosage , Diphosphonates/administration & dosage , Imidazoles/administration & dosage , Male , Rabbits , Random Allocation , Surface Properties , Tibia , Zoledronic AcidABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review and compare the differences between mandibular fractures in young and adult patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients treated at the Oral and Maxillofacial Department of Dicle University during a five-year period between 2000 and 2005 were retrospectively evaluated with respect to age groups, gender, etiology, localization and type of fractures, treatment methods and complications. RESULTS: 532 patients were included in the study, 370 (70%) males and 162 (30%) females, with a total of 744 mandibular fractures. The mean age of young patients was 10, with a male-female ratio of 2:1. The mean age of adult patients was 28, with a male-female ratio of 3:1. The most common causes of injury were falls (65%) in young patients and traffic accidents (38%) in adults. The most common fracture sites were the symphysis (35%) and condyle (36%) in young patients, and the symphysis in adults (36%). Mandibular fractures were generally treated by arch bar and maxillomandibular fixation in both young (67%) and adult (39%) patients, and 43% of the adult patients were treated by open reduction and internal fixation. CONCLUSION: There was a similar gender, monthly and type of treatment distribution in both young and adult patients in the southeast region of Turkey. However, there were differences regarding age, etiology and fracture site. These findings between young and adult patients are broadly similar to those from other studies. Analysis of small differences may be an important factor in assessing educational and socioeconomic environments.
Subject(s)
Mandibular Fractures/epidemiology , Accidental Falls/statistics & numerical data , Accidents, Traffic/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Bone Wires/statistics & numerical data , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Fracture Fixation/statistics & numerical data , Fracture Fixation, Internal/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infant , Jaw Fixation Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Male , Mandibular Condyle/injuries , Mandibular Fractures/classification , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Sex Factors , Time Factors , Turkey/epidemiology , Violence/statistics & numerical data , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review and compare the differences between mandibular fractures in young and adult patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients treated at the Oral and Maxillofacial Department of Dicle University during a five-year period between 2000 and 2005 were retrospectively evaluated with respect to age groups, gender, etiology, localization and type of fractures, treatment methods and complications. RESULTS: 532 patients were included in the study, 370 (70 percent) males and 162 (30 percent) females, with a total of 744 mandibular fractures. The mean age of young patients was 10, with a male-female ratio of 2:1. The mean age of adult patients was 28, with a male-female ratio of 3:1. The most common causes of injury were falls (65 percent) in young patients and traffic accidents (38 percent) in adults. The most common fracture sites were the symphysis (35 percent) and condyle (36 percent) in young patients, and the symphysis in adults (36 percent). Mandibular fractures were generally treated by arch bar and maxillomandibular fixation in both young (67 percent) and adult (39 percent) patients, and 43 percent of the adult patients were treated by open reduction and internal fixation. CONCLUSION: There was a similar gender, monthly and type of treatment distribution in both young and adult patients in the southeast region of Turkey. However, there were differences regarding age, etiology and fracture site. These findings between young and adult patients are broadly similar to those from other studies. Analysis of small differences may be an important factor in assessing educational and socioeconomic environments.
