English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The use of different membranes is common in dentoalveolar surgery. Absorbable and nonabsorbable membranes are used, often beneath the periosteum, to fulfil different functions (as barriers, patches, or spacers). It is still unclear to what extent such membranes affect the biology of the periosteum and what role is played by piezoelectric devices during preparation of the periosteum. We placed two different membranes (absorbable and nonabsorbable) underneath the periosteum of rat calvaria. We prepared the periosteum using different methods (piezoelectric device vs mechanical device). We then examined and analyzed periosteal microcirculation over a period of 28 days. A clear difference was observed between the two methods when used with absorbable membranes: The piezoelectric device offered advantages. Absorbable membranes maintain considerably more local periosteal microcirculation and should be given preference. In addition, we observed an advantage to using a piezoelectric device for periosteal dissection. Therefore, this method should also be used more widely.

Examination of Local Periosteal Microcirculation After Application of Absorbable and Nonabsorbable Membranes