In vitro evaluation of various bioabsorbable and nonresorbable barrier membranes for guided tissue regeneration

被引:77
|
作者
Kasaj A. [1 ]
Reichert C. [1 ]
Götz H. [2 ]
Röhrig B. [3 ]
Smeets R. [4 ]
Willershausen B. [1 ]
机构
[1] Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz
[2] Institute of Applied Structure and Microanalysis, Medical Faculty, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz
[3] Institute for Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz
[4] Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Aachen University
关键词
Collagen Membrane; Gingival Fibroblast; Human Gingival Fibroblast; Guide Tissue Regeneration; Alamar Blue Assay;
D O I
10.1186/1746-160X-4-22
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background. Different types of bioabsorbable and nonresorbable membranes have been widely used for guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with its ultimate goal of regenerating lost periodontal structures. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the biological effects of various bioabsorbable and nonresorbable membranes in cultures of primary human gingival fibroblasts (HGF), periodontal ligament fibroblasts (PDLF) and human osteoblast-like (HOB) cells in vitro. Methods. Three commercially available collagen membranes [TutoDent® (TD), Resodont® (RD) and BioGide® (BG)] as well as three nonresorbable polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membranes [ACE (AC), Cytoplast® (CT) and TefGen-FD® (TG)] were tested. Cells plated on culture dishes (CD) served as positive controls. The effect of the barrier membranes on HGF, PDLF as well as HOB cells was assessed by the Alamar Blue fluorometric proliferation assay after 1, 2.5, 4, 24 and 48 h time periods. The structural and morphological properties of the membranes were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results. The results showed that of the six barriers tested, TD and RD demonstrated the highest rate of HGF proliferation at both earlier (1 h) and later (48 h) time periods (P < 0.001) compared to all other tested barriers and CD. Similarly, TD, RD and BG had significantly higher numbers of cells at all time periods when compared with the positive control in PDLF culture (P ≤; 0.001). In HOB cell culture, the highest rate of cell proliferation was also calculated for TD at all time periods (P < 0.001). SEM observations demonstrated a microporous structure of all collagen membranes, with a compact top surface and a porous bottom surface, whereas the nonresorbable PTFE membranes demonstrated a homogenous structure with a symmetric dense skin layer. Conclusion. Results from the present study suggested that GTR membrane materials, per se, may influence cell proliferation in the process of periodontal tissue/bone regeneration. Among the six membranes examined, the bioabsorbable membranes demonstrated to be more suitable to stimulate cellular proliferation compared to nonresorbable PTFE membranes. © 2008 Kasaj et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Histologic evaluation of guided tissue regeneration using 4 barrier membranes: A comparative furcation study in dogs
    Lekovic, V
    Klokkevold, PR
    Kenney, EB
    Dimitrijelic, B
    Nedic, M
    Weinlaender, M
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 1998, 69 (01) : 54 - 61
  • [22] EVALUATION OF A SYNTHETIC BIODEGRADABLE BARRIER TO FACILITATE GUIDED TISSUE REGENERATION
    QUINONES, CR
    CATON, JG
    POLSON, AM
    WAGENER, CJ
    MOTA, LF
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1990, 69 : 275 - 275
  • [23] Guided periodontal tissue regeneration in class II furcation defects following treatment with a synthetic bioabsorbable barrier
    Hurzeler, MB
    Quinones, CR
    Caffesse, RG
    Schupbach, P
    Morrison, EC
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 1997, 68 (05) : 498 - 505
  • [24] Resorbable versus nonresorbable membranes in combination with Bio-Oss for guided bone regeneration
    Zitzmann, NU
    Naef, R
    Scharer, P
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 1997, 12 (06) : 844 - 852
  • [25] Attachment of fibroblasts to membranes used for guided tissue regeneration in vitro.
    Gabriel, BF
    RiveraHidalgo, F
    Stanford, TW
    Dill, RE
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1996, 75 : 2472 - 2472
  • [26] Antimicrobial effect of nanostructured membranes for guided tissue regeneration: an in vitro study
    Bueno, J.
    Sanchez, M. C.
    Toledano-Osorio, M.
    Figuero, E.
    Toledano, M.
    Medina-Castillo, A. L.
    Osorio, R.
    Herrera, D.
    Sanz, M.
    DENTAL MATERIALS, 2020, 36 (12) : 1566 - 1577
  • [27] Limitations and options using resorbable versus nonresorbable membranes for successful guided bone regeneration
    Soldatos, Nikolaos K.
    Stylianou, Popi
    Koidou, Vasiliki P.
    Angelov, Nikola
    Yukna, Raymond
    Romanos, Georgios E.
    QUINTESSENCE INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 48 (02): : 131 - 147
  • [28] Bacterial adherence to guided tissue regeneration barrier membranes exposed to the oral environment
    Chen, YT
    Wang, HL
    Lopatin, DE
    ONeal, R
    MacNeil, RL
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 1997, 68 (02) : 172 - 179
  • [29] Integrated connective tissue in bioabsorbable barrier material and periodontal regeneration
    Zucchelli, G
    DeSanctis, M
    Clauser, C
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 1997, 68 (10) : 996 - 1004
  • [30] Initial attachment of osteoblasts to various guided bone regeneration membranes:: an in vitro study
    Wang, HL
    Miyauchi, M
    Takata, T
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTAL RESEARCH, 2002, 37 (05) : 340 - 344