Можливість використання методики безпосередньої імплантації з негайним навантаженням з використанням остеопластичних ксеногенних матеріалів (огляд літератури)

Abstract

В даній статті проведено аналіз методики безпосередньої імплантації з негайним навантаженням та порівняльна характеристика якісних властивостей остеопластичних матеріалів Біопласт-Дент “ВладМіВа”(Россія), Остеопласт НПК “ВИТАФОРМ“ (Россія), Cerabone “Botiss GmbH” (Німеччина), Biо-Оss “Geistlich” (Швейцарія), наведена класифікація та проаналізовані їх переваги і недоліки.

В данной статье проведено анализ методики непосредственной имплантации с немедленной нагрузкой и сравнительную характеристику качественных свойств остеопластических материалов Биопласт-Дент "ВладМиВа" (Россия), Остеопласт НПК "ВИТАФОРМ" (Россия), Cerabone "Botiss GmbH" (Германия), Biо-Оss "Geistlich" (Швейцария), приведена классификация и проанализированы их преимущества и недостатки.

Relevance of this work is the solution to the emerging problems with the help of xenogeneous osteoplastic materials using immediate implantation technique with immediate load. We used electronic databases PubMed/Medline, Science Direct, Google Scholar, RISC to analyze researches on immediate dental implantation with immediate load and we analyzed osteoplastic materials with their advantages and disadvantages taking into account the process of osteointegration. The proposed modern methods of implantation have led to new deficiencies associated with poor osteointegration and a negative aesthetic result. Thus, in the method of immediate implantation with immediate load, the problem zone was represented by cervical area. Given tissue deficits, there is much worse restoration of bone tissue in this area and the preservation of the walls of the alveoli, eliminating the possibility of displacement of the muco-periosteal flap, especially from the vestibular surface, where the bone layer is considerably thinned. The acceleration of osteogenesis with the common resorption of the osteoplastic material is a wishful phenomenon of osteointegration. A more predicted result will be usually with an autogenous material. The disadvantage of its use is the additional surgical intervention, and the impossibility of taking the material in enough quantities in each clinical case. The popularity of the use of xenogeneous materials is due to the presence of osteoinductive properties. There are quite a few different manufacturers involved in the manufacture of xenogeneous materials. But despite the similarity in morphological characteristics, osteoinductive action at the stages of osteointegration in each sample is individual. Existing techniques for directed bone regeneration, namely the combination of soft tissue management and the use of osteoplastic materials, are not always suitable in each individual clinical case. The behavior of the osteoplastic material itself under conditions of permissible threshold of microroughness is also not investigated. Therefore, there is no consensus on the benefits of this or that xenogenic material. The need for additional morphological and clinical studies is obvious.