Healing pattern of bone defects covered by different membrane types—A histologic study in the porcine mandible
- 16 December 2005
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials
- Vol. 78B (1), 35-46
- https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.30452
Abstract
Few investigations on guided bone regeneration (GBR) focus on the behaviour of tissues adjacent to barrier membranes. This study was conducted to (1) evaluate the barrier function potential of different resorbable and nonresorbable membranes for GBR, (2) investigate their structural changes after different intervals, and (3) characterize tissue composition and reaction adjacent to the barrier by qualitative histologic evaluation. Seven barriers for GBR were used per animal (made of dense or expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (d/ePTFE), titanium, polyetherurethane, collagen and two polylactide‐polyglycolide‐/‐trimethylenecarbonate‐co‐polymers (PLPG, LPGTC) in standardized defects not exceeding the critical size) without using bone substitution material or autogenous bone at the right inferior margin of the mandibles of six domestic pigs. Samples of the defect areas with membranes were harvested after 2 days (one animal), 4 and 8 (two animals, each) and 12 weeks (one animal), respectively. The healing of bone defects was completed in all animals after 12 weeks. Nonresorbable barriers prevented the soft tissue in‐growth into standardized defects. Thinner layers of fibrous tissue were seen underneath the dense and rigid barriers (dPTFE, titanium) when compared with collagen and PLPG/LPGTC, in which soft‐tissue plugs occupied the crestal defect portion. PLPG‐/LPGTC‐barriers underwent structural changes after 4 weeks and revealed blistered central layers, whereas structural changes were not evident in nonresorbable barriers. The degradation of PLPG‐/LPGTC‐membranes was present with in‐growth of fibres, vessels, and cells. Using collagen or synthetic polymer barriers for GBR, the application of bone or bone substitutes to prevent membrane prolapse into the defect is suggested. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2006Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of Porous and Non‐Porous Teflon Membranes Plus a Xenograft in the Treatment of Vertical Osseous Defects: A Clinical Reentry StudyThe Journal of Periodontology, 2003
- Histological assessment of augmented jaw bone utilizing a new collagen barrier membrane compared to a standard barrier membrane to protect a granular bone substitute materialClinical Oral Implants Research, 2002
- Collagen Membranes: A ReviewThe Journal of Periodontology, 2001
- Changes in Alveolar Bone Height and Width Following Ridge Augmentation Using Bone Graft and MembranesThe Journal of Periodontology, 2000
- Guided bone regeneration with titanium membranes: a clinical studyBritish Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2000
- THE USE OF HIGH-DENSITY POLYTETRAFLUOROETHYLENE MEMBRANE TO TREAT OSSEOUS DEFECTSImplant Dentistry, 1995
- Membrane permeability is unnecessary for guided generation of new bone. An experimental study in the rabbit.Clinical Oral Implants Research, 1994
- Immediate implant placement using a biodegradable barrier, polyhydroxybutyrate‐hydroxyvalerate reinforced with polyglactin 910. An experimental study in dogs.Clinical Oral Implants Research, 1994
- Bone augmentation at fenestrated implants by an osteopromotive membrane technique. A controlled clinical study.Clinical Oral Implants Research, 1991
- Surface Staining of Sawed Sections of Undecalcified Bone Containing Alloplastic ImplantsStain Technology, 1977