Therefore, this study compared 2 methods of bone augmentation, horizontal DO and a bone-splitting (BS) method with bone graft, using an experimental dog model.
Study design. Five beagle dogs were studied. The experiments were designed in a spit-mouth manner. One side of the alveolar ridge of the mandible was 4 mm expanded using horizontal DO, followed by implant placement 2 months after augmentation. The other side of the ridge of the mandible was 4 mm augmented using a bone splitting (BS) method with a learn more bone graft combined with simultaneous implant placement.
Results. The average amount
of bone gain on the DO side (2.7 mm) was significantly greater than that on the BS side (1.7 mm) (P Sapanisertib mouse = .008) The keratinized soft tissue gain on the DO side (2.8 mm) was significantly greater than that on the BS side (0.6 mm) (P = .02). Resonance frequency analysis revealed that implants placed in the distracted area achieved good stability compared with those on the BS side. The implants were fully embedded in mature lamellar bone, and direct bone contact with the implant surface was seen 3 months after implant placement in the distracted area.
Conclusions.
Horizontal alveolar ridge distraction appears be an effective technique for the placement of implants in a narrow alveolar ridge. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107:350-358)”
“Background: An understanding of the factors that determine the risk of members of a susceptible population becoming infected is essential for estimating the potential for disease spread, as opposed to just focusing on transmission
from an infected population. Furthermore, analysis of the risk factors can reveal important characteristics of an epidemic and further develop understanding of the processes operating.
Methods: This paper describes the development of a mixed effects logistic regression model of susceptibility of holdings to foot and mouth disease (FMD) during the 2001 epidemic in Great Britain following the imposition of a national ban on the movements of susceptible animals (NMB).
Results: The principal risk factors identified in the model were shorter distances to the nearest infectious seed (a holding infected before the NMB) and the county of the holding Selleckchem Fosbretabulin (principally Cumbria). Additional risk factors included holdings that are mixed species rather than single species, the surface area of the holding, and the number of cattle within 10 km (all p < 0.001), but not surrounding sheep densities (p > 0.1). The fit of the model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) and the Hosmer and Lemeshow Chi-squared statistic; the fit was good with both tests (area under the ROC = 0.962 and Hosmer and Lemeshow Chi-squared statistic = 49.98 (p > 0.1)).