Guided bone regeneration with polyethylene membrane, zoledronic acid and hydroxiapatide bone graft in peri-implant bone defect: An experimental study

dc.contributor.authorYaman, Ferhan
dc.contributor.authorDundar, Serkan
dc.contributor.authorCakmak, Omer
dc.contributor.authorSaybak, Arif
dc.contributor.authorKirtay, Mustafa
dc.contributor.authorKaya, Beyza
dc.contributor.authorOzercan, Ibrahim Hanifi
dc.date.accessioned2026-08-12T16:40:55Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.departmentFırat Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractThis study aimed to determine the guided bone regeneration (GBR) capacity of peri-implant bone defect treatment, either with only a hydroxyapatite bone graft or with a hydroxyapatite bone graft mixed with zoledronic acid (ZA) and employing polyethylene glycol (PEG) barrier membranes. In this study, four male New Zealand rabbits were used. First, the rabbits were randomly divided into two groups, the hydroxyapatite graft group (HA) (n=2) and the HA graft + zoledronic acid group (HA+ZA) (n=2). For the HA group, peri-implant GBR was performed with only an HA bone graft, and a resorbable PEG barrier membrane was placed over each surgical defect to cover the peri-implant bone defects. For the HA+ZA group, peri-implant GBR was performed with an HA bone graft that had previously been mixed with ZA. A resorbable PEG barrier membrane was placed over each surgical defect to cover the peri-implant bone defects. Experiments were performed using a standardised peri-implant bone tissue defect model in rabbit tibia for 60 days. Circumferential defects were surgically induced around the dental implants on the tibias of four rabbits. Sixty days after the surgical procedures, the rabbits were sacrificed, and their tibias with the graft sites were harvested for histologic evaluation. In the HA+ZA group, significantly more new bone formation was detected as compared with the HA group (P<0.05). Within the limitations of this study, locally administered ZA with an HA synthetic graft and PEG membrane was a more effective method as compared to using only a graft in a peri-implant GBR procedure. Additionally, a PEG membrane should be useful in GBR as a barrier membrane. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.
dc.identifier.endpage2688
dc.identifier.issn0970-938X
dc.identifier.issn0976-1683
dc.identifier.issue6
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-2568-7470
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85017110494
dc.identifier.scopusqualityN/A
dc.identifier.startpage2684
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11508/45618
dc.identifier.volume28
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000403448200055
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/A
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherAllied Acad
dc.relation.ispartofBiomedical Research-India
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_WoS_20260511
dc.subjectPeriimplant bone defect
dc.subjectGuided bone regeneration
dc.subjectSynthetic bone graft
dc.subjecthydroxiapatide
dc.subjectZoledronic acid
dc.titleGuided bone regeneration with polyethylene membrane, zoledronic acid and hydroxiapatide bone graft in peri-implant bone defect: An experimental study
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar