A comparison of porous composite PTFE/graphite and PTFE/aluminum oxide facial implants in primates.
Comparison of tissue ingrowth density values for Proplast I and its aluminum oxide analog, Proplast II, when implanted on the primate infraorbital rim and inferior border of the mandible, showed no difference between the two test materials. A similar comparison of local cellular response ratings showed slightly less response to Proplast II. Microscopic and clinical examination did not otherwise reveal any significant differences in biologic reaction to these materials.
D000535:Aluminum; D000537:Aluminum Oxide; D000818:Animals; D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D003757:Dental Implantation; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005147:Facial Bones / Q000601:surgery*; D008334:Mandible / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000601:surgery; D009915:Orbit / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000601:surgery; D010215:Papio; D011138:Polytetrafluoroethylene; D011428:Proplast / Q000031:analogs & derivatives; D019736:Prostheses and Implants; D013997:Time Factors
D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D011428:Proplast; C036587:proplast II; D011138:Polytetrafluoroethylene; D000535:Aluminum; D000537:Aluminum Oxide