Elucidating the Benefit of Perforated vs Non-Perforated Membranes in Guided Bone Regeneration: An in Vivo Histologic Evaluation and Histomorphometric Analysis.

Istvan A Urban, Nicholas Mirsky, Matteo Serroni, Nick Tovar, Vasudev Vivekanand Nayak, Lukasz Witek, Charles Marin, Muhammad H A Saleh, Andrea Ravida, Istvan Baczko, Laszlo Parkanyi, Katalin Nagy, Paulo G Coelho
{"title":"Elucidating the Benefit of Perforated vs Non-Perforated Membranes in Guided Bone Regeneration: An in Vivo Histologic Evaluation and Histomorphometric Analysis.","authors":"Istvan A Urban, Nicholas Mirsky, Matteo Serroni, Nick Tovar, Vasudev Vivekanand Nayak, Lukasz Witek, Charles Marin, Muhammad H A Saleh, Andrea Ravida, Istvan Baczko, Laszlo Parkanyi, Katalin Nagy, Paulo G Coelho","doi":"10.11607/prd.7110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non-perforated Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membranes are effectively utilized in guided bone regeneration (GBR) but may hinder cell migration due to limited interaction with the periosteum. This study compared bone regeneration using occlusive or perforated membranes combined with acellular collagen sponge (ACS) and recombinant human bone morphogenic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) in a canine mandibular model.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Male beagle dogs (n&#61;3) received two mandibular defects each to compare ACS/rhBMP-2 with experimental (perforated group) and control (non-perforated group) membranes (n&#61;3 defects/group). Tissue healing was assessed histomorphologically, histomorphometrically and through volumetric reconstruction using microcomputed tomography.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The perforated group showed increased bone formation and reduced soft tissue formation compared to the non-perforated group. For the primary outcome, histomorphometric analysis revealed significantly greater total regenerated bone in the perforated group (67.08 ± 6.86%) relative to the nonperforated group (25.18 ± 22.44%) (p &#61; 0.036). Perforated membranes had less soft tissue infiltration (32.91 ± 6.86%) compared to non-perforated membranes (74.82 ± 22.44%) (p &#61; 0.036).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The increased permeability of membranes in the perforated group potentially enabled periosteal precursor cells greater accessibility to rhBMP-2. The availability may have accelerated their differentiation into mature bone-forming cells, contributing to the stimulation of new bone production, relative to the non-perforated group.</p>","PeriodicalId":94231,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry","volume":" ","pages":"1-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.7110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Non-perforated Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membranes are effectively utilized in guided bone regeneration (GBR) but may hinder cell migration due to limited interaction with the periosteum. This study compared bone regeneration using occlusive or perforated membranes combined with acellular collagen sponge (ACS) and recombinant human bone morphogenic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) in a canine mandibular model.

Material and methods: Male beagle dogs (n=3) received two mandibular defects each to compare ACS/rhBMP-2 with experimental (perforated group) and control (non-perforated group) membranes (n=3 defects/group). Tissue healing was assessed histomorphologically, histomorphometrically and through volumetric reconstruction using microcomputed tomography.

Results: The perforated group showed increased bone formation and reduced soft tissue formation compared to the non-perforated group. For the primary outcome, histomorphometric analysis revealed significantly greater total regenerated bone in the perforated group (67.08 ± 6.86%) relative to the nonperforated group (25.18 ± 22.44%) (p = 0.036). Perforated membranes had less soft tissue infiltration (32.91 ± 6.86%) compared to non-perforated membranes (74.82 ± 22.44%) (p = 0.036).

Conclusion: The increased permeability of membranes in the perforated group potentially enabled periosteal precursor cells greater accessibility to rhBMP-2. The availability may have accelerated their differentiation into mature bone-forming cells, contributing to the stimulation of new bone production, relative to the non-perforated group.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阐明穿孔膜与非穿孔膜在引导骨再生中的优势:体内组织学评估和组织形态计量分析。
背景:无孔聚四氟乙烯(PTFE)膜可有效用于引导骨再生(GBR),但由于与骨膜的相互作用有限,可能会阻碍细胞迁移。本研究在犬下颌骨模型中比较了使用闭塞膜或穿孔膜结合无细胞胶原海绵(ACS)和重组人骨形态发生蛋白-2(rhBMP-2)进行骨再生的效果。材料与方法:雄性小猎犬(n=3)各接受两个下颌骨缺损,将 ACS/rhBMP-2 与实验组(穿孔组)和对照组(无穿孔组)的膜(n=3 个缺损/组)进行比较。通过组织形态学、组织形态计量学以及使用微计算机断层扫描进行容积重建,对组织愈合情况进行评估。结果显示与未穿孔组相比,穿孔组的骨形成增加,软组织形成减少。在主要结果方面,组织形态学分析显示,穿孔组的再生骨总量(67.08 ± 6.86%)明显高于未穿孔组(25.18 ± 22.44%)(p = 0.036)。与未穿孔膜(74.82 ± 22.44%)相比,穿孔膜的软组织浸润较少(32.91 ± 6.86%)(p = 0.036)。结论:穿孔组膜的通透性增加可能使骨膜前体细胞更容易获得 rhBMP-2。与未穿孔组相比,这种可获得性可能加速了骨膜前体细胞向成熟骨形成细胞的分化,从而刺激了新骨的生成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Effect of Cement- Versus Screw-Retained Implant Positioning in the Esthetic Zone on Emergence Angle: A Proof-of-Principle Study. The Management of Gingival Fenestration: A Series of Three Cases. Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Patient Communication: Current Possibilities. Autonomous Dental Implant Robotic System Utilization for Implant Placement and Transcrestal Sinus Elevation Using Osseodensification: A Case Report. Alveolar Ridge Preservation Procedures Performed with Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft: Clinical and Histologic Outcomes in a Case Series: Part II.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1