» Articles » PMID: 16362958

Healing Pattern of Bone Defects Covered by Different Membrane Types--a Histologic Study in the Porcine Mandible

Overview
Date 2005 Dec 20
PMID 16362958
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Finite element analysis of the influence of perioral force on alveolar ridge healing in areas missing maxillary anterior teeth.

Li A, He Y, Li X, Han C, Dong J, Zhang K BMC Oral Health. 2025; 25(1):24.

PMID: 39755604 PMC: 11700444. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-05317-z.


Alveolar Bone Morphologic Predictors for Guided Bone Regeneration Outcome in Anterior Maxilla.

Gan L, Zhou Q, Zhang Y, Yu Y, Yu Z, Sun Y Int Dent J. 2023; 74(1):102-109.

PMID: 37714716 PMC: 10829351. DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2023.07.007.


Horizontal bone augmentation using two membranes at dehisced implant sites: A randomized clinical study.

Nahid R, Bansal M, Pandey S J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2022; 12(5):487-491.

PMID: 35733847 PMC: 9207285. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2022.06.003.


Hard Tissue Volume Stability Effect beyond the Bony Envelope of a Three-Dimensional Preformed Titanium Mesh with Two Different Collagen Barrier Membranes on Peri-Implant Dehiscence Defects in the Anterior Maxilla: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Lee S, Jang T, Seo C, Choi I, Lee W Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(19).

PMID: 34640019 PMC: 8510212. DOI: 10.3390/ma14195618.


The Influence of Different Guided Bone Regeneration Procedures on the Contour of Bone Graft after Wound Closure: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Wang M, Zhang X, Li Y, Mo A Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(3).

PMID: 33513735 PMC: 7865681. DOI: 10.3390/ma14030583.