Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNappe, C.E. [Universidad Mayor, Chile]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorRezuc, A.B. [Universidad Mayor, Chile]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorMontecinos, A. [Universidad Mayor, Chile]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorDonoso, F.A. [Universidad Mayor, Chile]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorVergara, A.J. [Universidad Mayor, Chile]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorMartínez, B. [Universidad Mayor, Chile]es_CL
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-12T14:11:55Z
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-12T19:30:40Z
dc.date.available2020-08-12T14:11:55Z
dc.date.available2020-08-12T19:30:40Z
dc.date.issued2016es_CL
dc.identifier.citationNappe, C., Rezuc, A., Montecinos, A., Donoso, F., Vergara, A., & Martinez, B. (2016). Histological comparison of an allograft, a xenograft and alloplastic graft as bone substitute materials. Journal of Osseointegration, 8(2), 20-26. https://doi.org/10.23805/jo.2016.08.02.02es_CL
dc.identifier.issn2036-4121es_CL
dc.identifier.issn2036-413Xes_CL
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.journalofosseointegration.eu/index.php/jo/article/view/105/101es_CL
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.23805/jo.2016.08.02.02es_CL
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorio.umayor.cl/xmlui/handle/sibum/6977
dc.description.abstractAim An allograft, a xenograft and an alloplastic graft, associated to sinus lift or ridge preservation procedures were histologically studied to evaluate their characteristics and to obtain the percentages of bone and remaining graft particles. This may help the clinician to determine, form the histological point of view, if they are viable alternatives to the use of autograft in bone regeneration procedures. Materials and methods Twenty-five samples from 18 subjects were histologically evaluated with respect to newly formed bone and remaining graft particles percentage. Results The three studied grafting materials presented adequate osteoconduction characteristics. Differences in newly formed bone percentage were found between the allograft and the xenograft, whereas no differences were found between the allograft and the alloplastic graft or the xenograft and the alloplastic graft. There were no significant differences in the percentage of residual particles amongst the different types of graft. Conclusions All studied bone substitute materials showed good characteristics for their use in bone regeneration therapies.es_CL
dc.format.extentArtículo original
dc.language.isoenes_CL
dc.publisherAriesdue srles_CL
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile
dc.sourceJournal of Osseointegration, 2016. 8(2): p: 20-26
dc.titleHistological comparison of an allograft, a xenograft and alloplastic graft as bone substitute materialses_CL
dc.typeArtículo o paperes_CL
umayor.facultadFacultad de Ciencias
umayor.indizadorCOT
umayor.politicas.sherpa/romeoRoMEO UNGRADED journal (Las políticas de esta revista no se han comprobado por RoMEO. DOAJ afirma que ésta es una revista de acceso abierto, pero esto puede significar sólo que está libremente accesible para leerla. Contacte con la editorial para más información si la requiere)es_CL
umayor.indexadoSCOPUSes_CL
dc.identifier.doiDOI: 10.23805/jo.2016.08.02.02es_CL]
umayor.indicadores.wos-(cuartil)Q3es_CL
umayor.indicadores.scopus-(scimago-sjr)0,24es_CL


Show simple item record