Репозиторий Университета

The aim of the study was to provide a mathematical justification of the possibility of using 6.5 mm IRIS implants and to evaluate the results of orthopedic treatment in patients with partial loss of teeth. For the calculations was constructed of a composite three-dimensional computer models: the abutment screw-implant-bone. A total of 3 models were prepared: M1-implant in the spongy bone tissue, this model corresponds to the implantation on the HF when replacing one molar; M2-2 implants in the spongy bone tissue located at a distance of 4 mm connected via abutments, this model corresponds to the implantation of RF when replacing two molars; M3-implant in the cortical bone tissue, this model corresponds to the implantation of LF when replacing one molar. Loading of implants was carried out by occlusive force applied to its end surface. The results of the calculations showed that the equivalent stresses and limiting stresses of compression-tension are within the permissible values, which were obtained by us earlier in respect of the irregular implants and are consistent with the results of calculations for other systems of short implants. The clinical part of the work consisted in the treatment of 27 patients with partial loss of teeth, who had 41 iris evolution implants with a diameter of 5 mm, length of 6.5 mm after 3 years, there was a slow bone resorption in the cervical region not exceeding 0.35 mm, which corresponds to generally accepted international standards. During the first three years of operation there were no cases of loss of established implants. Thus, the data of mathematical modeling by finite element method and retrospective three-year analysis of prosthetics on IRIS evolution implants with length of 6.5 mm showed that the use of short implants in the recovery of upper and lower jaw molars is an effective method with a high success rate at long - term and resorption level of 0.34 mm.

Biofabrication holds the potential to generate constructs that more closely recapitulate the complexity and heterogeneity of tissues and organs than do currently available regenerative medicine therapies. Such constructs can be applied for tissue regeneration or as in vitro 3D models. Biofabrication is maturing and growing, and scientists with different backgrounds are joining this field, underscoring the need for unity regarding the use of terminology. We therefore believe that there is a compelling need to clarify the relationship between the different concepts, technologies, and descriptions of biofabrication that are often used interchangeably or inconsistently in the current literature. Our objective is to provide a guide to the terminology for different technologies in the field which may serve as a reference for the biofabrication community.

Biofabrication holds the potential to generate constructs that more closely recapitulate the complexity and heterogeneity of tissues and organs than do currently available regenerative medicine therapies. Such constructs can be applied for tissue regeneration or as in vitro 3D models. Biofabrication is maturing and growing, and scientists with different backgrounds are joining this field, underscoring the need for unity regarding the use of terminology. We therefore believe that there is a compelling need to clarify the relationship between the different concepts, technologies, and descriptions of biofabrication that are often used interchangeably or inconsistently in the current literature. Our objective is to provide a guide to the terminology for different technologies in the field which may serve as a reference for the biofabrication community.