Referenzen 1 Schmitt et al. Histological results after maxillary sinus augmentation with Straumann® BoneCeramic, Bio-Oss®, Puros®, and autologous bone. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013, 24, 576. 2 Solakoglu et al. Histological and immunohistochemical comparison of two different allogeneic bone grafting materials for alveolar ridge reconstruction: A prospective randomized trial in humans. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019, 21, 1002-1016. 3 Kloss et al. Customized allogeneic bone grafts for maxillary horizontal augmentation: A 5-year follow-up radiographic and histologic evaluation. Clin Case Rep. 2020. 8:886-893. 4 Wen et al. Time analysis of alveolar ridge preservation using a combination of mineralized bone-plug and dense-polytetrafluoroethylene membrane: A histomorphometric study. J Periodontol. 2020 Feb;91(2):215-222. 5 Kloss et al. Comparison of allogeneic and autogenous bone grafts for augmentation of alveolar ridge defects—A 12-month retrospective radiographic evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018. 29:1163-1175. 6 Data on file. Li et al. Isolation and Characterization of a Porous Carbonate Apatite From Porcine Cancellous Bone. Science, Technology, Innovation, Aug. 2014: 1–13. 7 Spense et al. Osteoclastogenesis on hydroxyapatite ceramics: the effect of carbonate substitution. J Biomed Mater Res A., Mar 15, 2010. 92:1292-1300. 8 Ellies et al. Quantitative Analysis of Early In Vivo Tissue Response to Synthetic Apatite Implants. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010. 92:1292-1300. 9 Landi et al. Carbonated Hydroxyapatite as Bone Substitute. Journal of the European Ceramic Society, 2003, 23:2931–2937. 10 Spense et al. Carbonate Substituted Hydroxyapatite: Resorption by Osteoclasts Modifies the Osteoblastic Response. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2009. 90(1): 217-224. 11 Li et al. Comparison of a New Natural Bovine Bone Mineral (Carbonate Apatite Anorganic Bone) to Currently Marketed NuOss™ and Bio-Oss®: In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluations. Collagen Matrix, Inc., Oakland, New Jersey 07436. 12 Gonshor et al. Evaluation of Anorganic Bovine Bone Mineral in Post-extraction Alveolar Sockets: A Case Series. J. Osseointegration 2010. 2(1):25-30. 13 Riachi et al. Influence of material properties on rate of resorption of two bone graft materials after sinus lift using radiographic assessment. Int J Dent. 2012. 2012:737262. 14 Lorean et al. Nasal floor elevation combined with dental implant placement: a long-term report of up to 86 months. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014. 29:705-708. 15 Tawil et al. Sinus Floor Elevation Using the Lateral Approach and Bone Window Repositioning I: Clinical and Radiographic Results in 102 Consecutively Treated Patients Followed from 1 to 5 Years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016. 31:827-834. 16 78,5% der Anwender gaben eine einfachere oder sehr viel einfachere Anwendung im Vergleich zu partikulärem Material ohne Hyaluronsäure an; Data on file: Kundenbefragung unter 156 Klinikern. 17 10–20 mal mehr Hyaluron im Vergleich zu anderen Hyaluronsäureprodukten auf dem Dentalmarkt (Data on file, Marktforschung botiss biomaterials 12/2023). 18 Sattar et al. (1994) J. Invest. Dermatol. 103, 576–579. 19 King et al. (1991) Surgery. 109(1):76-84. 20 Kyyak et al. Hyaluronic Acid with Bone Substitutes Enhance Angiogenesis In Vivo. Materials (Basel) 2022. 15(11):3839. 21 Binderman et al. Tissue Engineering of Bone: Critical Evaluation of Scaffold Selection. Bone Regeneration, edited by Haim Tal, IntechOpen, 2012. 10.5772/33004. 22 Jelusic et al. Monophasic ß-TCP vs. biphasic HA/ß-TCP in two-stage sinus floor augmentation procedures - a prospective randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Oct;28(10):e175-e183. 23 Lorenz et al. Investigation of peri-implant tissue conditions and peri-implant tissue stability in implants placed with simultaneous augmentation procedure: a 3-year retrospective follow-up analysis of a newly developed bone level implant system. Int J Implant Dent. 2017. 3(1):41. 24 Allan B. et al. Collagen Membrane for Guided Bone Regeneration in Dental and Orthopedic Applications. Tissue Engineering 2020. 25 Data on file, Li et al. A comparative study of a new porcine collagen membrane to BioGide®. Science, Technology, Innovation. February 1–5, 2015. 26 Rothamel et al. Biocompatibility and biodegradation of a native porcine pericardium membrane: results of in vitro and in vivo examinations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012. 27:146-154. 27 Barbeck et al. Porcine Dermis and Pericardium-Based, Non-Cross-Linked Materials Induce Multinucleated Giant Cells After Their In Vivo Implantation: A Physiological Reaction? J Oral Implantol. 2015 41(6):e267-81. 28 Kloss et al. Comparison of allogeneic and autogenous bone grafts for augmentation of alveolar ridge defects-A 12-month retrospective radiographic evaluation. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2018 29:1163–1175. 29 Data on file, Yuen et al. Prediction of in vivo stability of a resorbable, reconstituted type I collagen membrane by in vitro methods. World Biomaterials Congress Transactions, 6th World Biomaterials Congress Transactions. Collagen Matrix Inc., Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417 USA. 30 Zafiropoulos et al. Open-Healing Socket Preservation with a Novel Dense Polytetrafluoroethylene (dPTFE) Membrane: A Retrospective Clinical Study. Medicina (Kaunas). 2020. 56(5):216. 31 Papi et al. The Use of a Non-Absorbable Membrane as an Occlusive Barrier for Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A One Year Follow-Up Prospective Cohort Study. Antibiotics (Basel). 2020. 9(3):110. 32 Data on file, Allergan. NovoMatrix™ – Mechanical testing, Preclinical Data. 33 Data on file, Allergan. INT/0204/2018. 34 Del Amo et al. Comparison of two soft tissue substitutes for the treatment of gingival recession defects: an animal histological study. J Appl Oral Sci., 2019;27:e20180584. 35 Reference manufacturer’s Instructions for Use (IFU) package insert. 36 Griffin et al. Postoperative Complications Following Gingival Augmentation Procedures. J. Periodontol. 2006. 77:2070-2079. 37 Aguirre-Zorzano et al. Complications of harvesting a connective tissue graft from the palate. A retrospective study and description of a new technique. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(12):e1439-1445. 38 Tavelli et al. Minimizing Patient Morbidity Following Palatal Gingival Harvesting: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2018.3 8(6):e127-e134. 39 Harper et al. Extracellular wound matrices: a novel regenerative tissue matrix (RTM) technology for connective tissue reconstruction. Wounds. 2007. 19(6):163-168. 40 Sandor et al. Relevant in vitro predictors of human acellular dermal matrix-associated inflammation and capsule formation in a nonhuman primate subcutaneous tissue expander model. Eplasty. 2017. 17:e1-e21. 41 Xu et al. Host response to human acellular dermal matrix transplantation in a primate model abdominal wall repair. Part A. 2008. 14(2):2009-2019. 42 Van Orten A. Peri-implant thickening of soft tissue – stable and functional. Implantologie Journal 5 | 2020. 43 Sandor et al. Host response to implanted porcine-derived biologic materials in a primate model of abdominal wall repair. Tissue Eng Part A. 2008;14(12):2021-2031. 44 Zirk et al. 2016. Prevention of post-operative bleeding in hemostatic compromised patients using native porcine collagen fleeces-retrospective study of a consecutive case series. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 20(3):249-54. 24| Biomaterialien Produktkatalog 10/2024
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE0MzMw