Thesis - NSU Access Only
Master of Science (M.S.) in Dentistry
All rights reserved. This publication is intended for use solely by faculty, students, and staff of Nova Southeastern University. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or later developed, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author or the publisher.
College of Dental Medicine
Publication Date / Copyright Date
Nova Southeastern University
Brock Lorenz. 2013. Healos® versus Regenaform® in guided bone regeneration : a case series with histology and computed tomography. Master's thesis. Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from NSUWorks, College of Dental Medicine. (21)
"A thesis submitted to the College of Dental Medicine of Nova Southeastern University of the degree of Master of Science in Dentistry."
Objective: To compare the differences in new bone formation between Regenaform® (control) and a new material Healos® (test) when used with GBR (guided bone regeneration). Background: Subsequent to loss of teeth, supporting alveolar bone is predictably lost, comprising optimal dental implant placement. GBR is a procedure that augments deficient bone in preparation for a dental implant. Methods: Subjects in need of a dental implant but with insufficient bone were recruited to participate in the study. The control group received GBR with Regenaform® grafting material and the experimental group received GBR with Healos® grafting material. Implant placement into the GBR sites was performed six months after GBR surgery. Bone regeneration was assessed by comparison of pre- and post-operative cone-beam CT scans (CBCT) and dental stone models. At the time of implant placement, bone cores that would normally be discarded were obtained from four control group sites and four experimental sites and were analyzed histologically. Results: Comparison of CBCTs showed the horizontal bone augmentation obtained with GBR using Healos® graft material is much less compared to GBR using Regenaform® (1.57 mm versus 2.81 mm). All Healos® sites exhibited delayed short-term healing with excessive erythema, edema and suppuration. Histologic analysis shows that Healos® heals with similar vital bone and similar marrow and fibrous tissue compared to Regenaform®. Conclusion: The use of Healos® grafting material for use in GBR cannot be recommended when more predictable grafting materials such as Regenaform® are available.
Download Full Text (109.9 MB)