The Biomaterial-Induced Cellular Reaction Allows a Novel Classification System Regardless of the Biomaterials Origin
Overview
General Surgery
Affiliations
Several different biomaterials are being introduced for clinical applications. However, no current material-specific systematic studies define parameters for evaluating these materials. The aim of this retrospective animal study is to classify biomaterials according to the in vivo induced cellular reaction and outline the clinical consequence of the biomaterial-specific cellular reaction for the regeneration process. A retrospective histologic analysis was performed for 13 polymeric biomaterials and 19 bone substitute materials (BSMs) (of various compositions and origins) that were previously implanted in a standardized subcutaneous model. Semiquantitative analyses were performed at days 3, 15, and 30 after implantation according to a standardized score for the induction of multinucleated giant cells (MNGCs) and vascularization rate. The induced cellular reaction in response to different polymeric materials allowed their classification according to the MNGC score in the following groups: class I induced no MNGCs at any time point, class II induced and maintained a constant number of MNGCs over 30 days, and class III induced MNGCs and provided an increasing number over 30 days. All BSMs induced MNGCs to varying extents. Therefore, the resultant BSM classifications are as follows: class I induced MNGCs with a decreasing number, class II induced and maintained constant MNGCs over 30 days, and class III induced MNGCs with increasing number over 30 days. These observations were mostly related to the biomaterial physicochemical properties and were independent of the biomaterial origin. Consequently, the induction of MNGCs and their increase over 30 days resulted in disintegration of the biomaterial. By contrast, the absence of MNGCs resulted in an integration of the biomaterial within the host tissue. This novel classification provides clinicians a tool to assess the capacity and suitability of biomaterials in the intended clinical indication for bone and soft tissue implantations.
Asadikorayerm M, Asadikorayem M, Weber P, Surman F, Puiggali-Jou A, Zenobi-Wong M Adv Healthc Mater. 2024; 14(2):e2402890.
PMID: 39498680 PMC: 11730820. DOI: 10.1002/adhm.202402890.
The Use of Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) in the Management of Dry Socket: A Systematic Review.
Laforgia A, Inchingolo A, Riccaldo L, Avantario P, Buongiorno S, Malcangi G Int J Mol Sci. 2024; 25(18).
PMID: 39337554 PMC: 11432458. DOI: 10.3390/ijms251810069.
A Novel Prehydrated Porcine-Derived Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Histological and Clinical Evaluation.
van Orten A, Goetz W, Bilhan H Int J Biomater. 2024; 2024:7322223.
PMID: 38966862 PMC: 11223909. DOI: 10.1155/2024/7322223.
Xenogeneic matrix for basal cell carcinoma reconstruction: a case report.
Hildebrandt H, Kammerer P, Heimes D, Hartmann A J Surg Case Rep. 2024; 2024(6):rjae396.
PMID: 38832069 PMC: 11146217. DOI: 10.1093/jscr/rjae396.
Tseng K, Shiu S, Hung C, Chan Y, Chee T, Huang P Int J Mol Sci. 2024; 25(2).
PMID: 38255941 PMC: 10815485. DOI: 10.3390/ijms25020862.