The Use of Digital Technologies in the Comparative Analysis of the Collagen Matrix and Ethoss Material for the Regeneration of the Alveolar Process
Abstract
The article presents a comparative analysis of the use of collagen matrix and artificial bone material Ethoss for the regeneration of the alveolar process. The advantages and limitations of both materials are considered, as well as the role of digital technologies in diagnosis, planning and evaluation of treatment outcomes. The use of 3D modeling and data analysis software has made it possible to standardize the research process and improve the accuracy of evaluating the effectiveness of materials. Introduction Bone regeneration of the alveolar process is an urgent task of modern dentistry. Effective restoration of bone volume is necessary for further rehabilitation procedures, such as implantation. This article discusses the use of two materials — collagen matrix and artificial bone material Ethoss.
For the first time, attention is focused on the use of digital technologies for comparative analysis of their effectiveness. Digital technologies are increasingly being used in clinical practice, from planning operations to evaluating their results. Three-dimensional visualization, software modeling, and automatic data analysis make it possible to achieve a high degree of accuracy, minimize errors, and standardize research methods.
Literature review Previous studies have highlighted the benefits of using a collagen matrix to improve control over the condition of soft tissues. It has a high biocompatibility and promotes healing, but its effectiveness in stimulating osteogenesis is limited. On the other hand, the Ethoss material combines the properties of osteoconduction and osteoinduction, thereby accelerating the formation of bone tissue. It is a new generation biomaterial that is actively used in bone surgery and dentistry. Nevertheless, direct comparative studies of these materials, performed using digital technologies, are insufficient, which determined the relevance of this study. Goals and objectives of the study.
References
Botticelli, D., Berglundh, T., Lindhe, J. Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2004; 31(10): 820–828.
Hammerle, C. H. F., Jung, R. E. Bone augmentation by means of barrier membranes. Periodontology 2000, 2003; 33: 36–53.
Misch, C. E. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2008.
Zhang, X., Morikawa, T., Yamamoto, T., et al. β-Tricalcium phosphate-based biomaterials: Analysis of osteoconductivity and biodegradability. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2016; 27(1): 120–130.
Dahlin, C., Linde, A., Gottlow, J., Nyman, S. Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 1988; 81(5): 672–676.
Jensen, S. S., Broggini, N., Hjørting-Hansen, E., et al. Bone regeneration with a synthetic bone substitute. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2006; 17(4): 395–403.
Wang, H. L., Boyapati, L. “PASS” principles for predictable bone regeneration. Implant Dentistry, 2006; 15(1): 8–17.
