Marko Matijevic

Prof. Dr. Marko Matijevic

Faculty of Dental Medicine and Health Osijek, Cara Hadrijana 10 E, 31000 Osijek, Croatia
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

20Years (2007-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 March 2010 in Surgical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SKSlavica Kvolik
Slavica Kvolik
MJMarko Jukic
Marko Jukic
MMMarko Matijevic
Marko Matijevic
KMKsenija Marjanovic
Ksenija Marjanovic
LGLjubica Glavas-Obrovac
Ljubica Glavas-Obrovac

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Marija ČandrlićMarija Čandrlić
Marija Čandrlić
Matej TomasMatej Tomas
Matej Tomas
MKMatej Karl
Matej Karl
LMLucija Malešić
Lucija Malešić
AVAleksandar Včev
Aleksandar Včev
MMMarko Matijevic
Marko Matijevic
This study is the first histologic evaluation of an injectable biphasic calcium phosphate (IBCP) in humans six months after socket preservation according to the principles of guided bone regeneration. After tooth extraction, the alveolar ridge of 21 patients was augmented with IBCP (maxresorb® inject) in the test group, while 20 patients in the control group received a bovine xenograft (BX) (cerabone®). Six months after augmentation, a reentry procedure was performed to collect biopsies of regenerated bone for qualitative and quantitative histologic analysis. A total of 20 biopsies were taken for analysis. Qualitative histologic analysis showed complete integration of the biomaterial and no inflammatory tissue reaction, indicating the biocompatibility of the bone grafts and the surrounding tissue in both groups. Histomorphometric analysis showed comparable results in terms of newly formed bone (IBCP: 26.47 ± 14.71%, BX: 30.47 ± 16.39%) and residual biomaterial (IBCP: 13.1 ± 14.07%, BX: 17.89 ± 11.81%), with no significant difference found across groups (p > 0.05, Mann—Whitney U test). Statistical significance between groups was found in the result of soft tissue percentage (IBCP: 60.43 ± 12.73%, BX: 51.64 ± 14.63%, p = 0.046, Mann—Whitney U test). To conclude, IBCP and BX showed good osteoconductivity and biocompatibility with comparable new bone formation six months after alveolar ridge preservation.

1 January 2018 in Acta Clinica Croatica
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MSMiroslav Sikora
Miroslav Sikora
AVAleksandar Včev
Aleksandar Včev
SSStjepan Siber
Stjepan Siber
VBVanja Vučićević Boras
Vanja Vučićević Boras
ŽRŽeljko Rotim
Željko Rotim
MMMarko Matijevic
Marko Matijevic
The aim of this clinical study was to compare low-level laser therapy (LLLT) switched on and switched off in the treatment of burning mouth syndrome (BMS). BMS is a debilitating condition for patients and highly demanding for physicians,...

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Matej TomasMatej Tomas
Matej Tomas
MKMatej Karl
Matej Karl
Marija ČandrlićMarija Čandrlić
Marija Čandrlić
MMMarko Matijevic
Marko Matijevic
Martina JuzbašićMartina Juzbašić
Martina Juzbašić
Zeljka Peric KacarevicZeljka Peric Kacarevic
Zeljka Peric Kacarevic
Following trauma, chronic periapical process, or tooth extraction, a large loss of bone volume is noticed during the healing process. To facilitate the placement of dental implants, various surgical procedures are used for an optimal alveolar ridge profile, while maintaining adequate bone dimensions. The main aim of this study was to determine the healing ability (histologically and immunohistologically) of alveolar bone defects during augmentation with two different biomaterials: injectable biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) and anorganic bovine bone (ABB). Thirty-eight subjects were randomly divided into two groups. The first group received the tested bone substitute biomaterial (BSB), i.e., BCP (maxresorb inject®), and the second group received an alternative to the gold standard, i.e., ABB (Bio-Oss®). The histopathological, histomorphometric, and immunohistochemical analyses gave comparable results for these bone substitute materials in terms of newly formed bone: (BCP: 39.91 ± 8.49%, ABB: 41.73 ± 13.99%), residual biomaterial (BCP: 28.61 ± 11.38%, ABB: 31.72 ± 15.52%), and soft tissue (BCP: 31.49 ± 11.09%, ABB: 26.54 ± 7.25%), with no significant difference found between the groups (p < 0.05, t-test), proving that BCP is equally suitable and successful for alveolar bone regeneration.

12 November 2018 in Psychiatria Danubina
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MSMiroslav Sikora
Miroslav Sikora
ZVZeljko Verzak
Zeljko Verzak
MMMarko Matijevic
Marko Matijevic
AVAleksandar Vcev
Aleksandar Vcev
SSStjepan Siber
Stjepan Siber
ACAndreja Carek
Andreja Carek
Burning mouth syndrome is a condition of unknown etiology, characterized by burning symptoms on the otherwise clinically healthy oral mucosa. Central and/or peripheral neuropathy is one of the proposed causes for this condition. Psychological component in these patients is also very present, as it is known that BMS patients exhibit high levels of pain, anxiety, and depression. The aim of this study was to evaluate anxiety and depression among patients with burning mouth syndrome and a control group. We also further review and discuss the literature available on this subject. A total of 93 subjects, divided into two groups, participated in this study. The group of patients with BMS included 43 participants, while the control group consisted of 50 participants. Self-reported STAI (State anxiety and Trait anxiety) and BDI questionnaires were used to evaluate anxiety and depression in subjects in both groups. BMS group had higher average total scores of state anxiety, trait anxiety and depression. The difference between the BMS group and control group was statistically significant for state anxiety scores and BDI scores. We might conclude that BMS patients are more anxious (state) and depressed when compared with the control group. However, they do not differ from the control group regarding anxiety as a trait. Thus we might conclude that feeling of anxiety in general starts after the BMS symptoms first occur and last for a longer period of time.

26 May 2021 in Materials
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Matej TomasMatej Tomas
Matej Tomas
Marija ČandrlićMarija Čandrlić
Marija Čandrlić
Martina JuzbašićMartina Juzbašić
Martina Juzbašić
ZIZRINKA IVANIŠEVIĆ
ZRINKA IVANIŠEVIĆ
NMNikola Matijević
Nikola Matijević
Zeljka Peric KacarevicZeljka Peric Kacarevic
Zeljka Peric Kacarevic
After tooth extraction, the alveolar ridge undergoes dimensional changes. Different bone regeneration biomaterials are used to reduce bone loss. The aim of this article was to systematically review the literature on the effect of injectable synthetic biomaterials and their advantages and disadvantages for new bone formation in the maxilla and mandible in animals and humans. A literature search was conducted in November 2020 via MEDLINE PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. Of the 501 records screened, abstract analysis was performed on 49 articles, resulting in 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Animal studies have shown heterogeneity in terms of animal models, follow-up time, composition of the injectable biomaterial, and different outcome variables such as bone–implant contact, newly formed bone, and peri-implant bone density. Heterogeneity has also been demonstrated by human studies. The following outcomes were observed: newly formed bone, connective tissue, residual injectable bone graft substitute, radiographic density, residual bone height, and different follow-up periods. Further studies, especially in humans, based on the histological and biomechanical properties of the injectable delivery form, are needed to draw more concrete conclusions that will contribute to a better understanding of the benefits of this type of biomaterials and their role in bone regeneration.