Comparison of clinical efficacy of three different dentin matrix biomaterials obtained from different devices.

IF 2.9 3区医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL Expert Review of Medical Devices Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1080/17434440.2023.2190512

Robert Dłucik, Bogusława Orzechowska-Wylęgała, Daniel Dłucik, Domenico Puzzolo, Giuseppe Santoro, Antonio Micali, Barbara Testagrossa, Giuseppe Acri

{"title":"Comparison of clinical efficacy of three different dentin matrix biomaterials obtained from different devices.","authors":"Robert Dłucik, Bogusława Orzechowska-Wylęgała, Daniel Dłucik, Domenico Puzzolo, Giuseppe Santoro, Antonio Micali, Barbara Testagrossa, Giuseppe Acri","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2023.2190512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The aim of the present study was to propose the clinical efficacy of the different dentin matrix obtained from three devices (BonMaker, Tooth Transformer, and Smart Dentin Grinder) and to show their morphological, physical, and biochemical characteristics using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy.Research design and methods: The study included 70 patients who underwent bone augmentation using the BonMaker, Tooth Transformer, and Smart Dentin Grinder devices. In addition, 84 implants were placed. Furthermore, four samples, one for each device and one non-demineralized control, were analyzed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray analysis, and Raman spectroscopy.Results: In all patients, augmentation of bone defects with ground dentin matrix was successful, and implants showed correct osseointegration. The morphological organization, the chemical composition, and the presence of organic molecules in the dentin samples processed by the three different devices were demonstrated using SEM, energy-dispersive X-ray analysis, and Raman spectroscopy.Conclusions: Comparing BonMaker, Tooth Transformer, and Smart Dentin Grinder devices in our practice, we concluded that these systems, even with different structural and chemical differences of the dentin granules, have a comparable potential for obtaining regenerative material from the patient's own teeth.","PeriodicalId":12330,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2023.2190512","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the present study was to propose the clinical efficacy of the different dentin matrix obtained from three devices (BonMaker, Tooth Transformer, and Smart Dentin Grinder) and to show their morphological, physical, and biochemical characteristics using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy.

Research design and methods: The study included 70 patients who underwent bone augmentation using the BonMaker, Tooth Transformer, and Smart Dentin Grinder devices. In addition, 84 implants were placed. Furthermore, four samples, one for each device and one non-demineralized control, were analyzed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray analysis, and Raman spectroscopy.

Results: In all patients, augmentation of bone defects with ground dentin matrix was successful, and implants showed correct osseointegration. The morphological organization, the chemical composition, and the presence of organic molecules in the dentin samples processed by the three different devices were demonstrated using SEM, energy-dispersive X-ray analysis, and Raman spectroscopy.

Conclusions: Comparing BonMaker, Tooth Transformer, and Smart Dentin Grinder devices in our practice, we concluded that these systems, even with different structural and chemical differences of the dentin granules, have a comparable potential for obtaining regenerative material from the patient's own teeth.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

三种不同牙本质基质生物材料的临床疗效比较。

目的:本研究旨在通过扫描电镜(SEM)、能量色散x射线(EDX)光谱和拉曼光谱分析，研究从三种设备(BonMaker、Tooth Transformer和Smart dentin Grinder)中获得的不同牙本质基质的临床疗效，并分析其形态、物理和生化特征。研究设计和方法:本研究包括70例使用BonMaker、Tooth Transformer和Smart Dentin Grinder设备进行骨增强的患者。此外，放置了84个植入物。此外，使用扫描电子显微镜(SEM)、能量色散x射线分析和拉曼光谱分析了四个样品，每个设备一个样品和一个非脱矿对照。结果:所有患者均成功地用牙本质基质修复骨缺损，种植体表现出良好的骨整合。利用扫描电镜(SEM)、能量色散x射线分析和拉曼光谱(Raman spectroscopy)分析了三种不同装置处理的牙本质样品的形态组织、化学成分和有机分子的存在。结论:在我们的实践中比较BonMaker、Tooth Transformer和Smart Dentin Grinder设备，我们得出结论，即使这些系统的牙本质颗粒具有不同的结构和化学差异，但它们在从患者自己的牙齿中获得再生材料方面具有相当的潜力。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Expert Review of Medical Devices 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

5.90

自引率

3.20%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The journal serves the device research community by providing a comprehensive body of high-quality information from leading experts, all subject to rigorous peer review. The Expert Review format is specially structured to optimize the value of the information to reader. Comprehensive coverage by each author in a key area of research or clinical practice is augmented by the following sections: Expert commentary - a personal view on the most effective or promising strategies Five-year view - a clear perspective of future prospects within a realistic timescale Key issues - an executive summary cutting to the author''s most critical points In addition to the Review program, each issue also features Medical Device Profiles - objective assessments of specific devices in development or clinical use to help inform clinical practice. There are also Perspectives - overviews highlighting areas of current debate and controversy, together with reports from the conference scene and invited Editorials.