» Articles » PMID: 35355145

Permeability of P. Gingivalis or Its Metabolic Products Through Collagen and DPTFE Membranes and Their Effects on the Viability of Osteoblast-like Cells: an in Vitro Study

Overview
Journal Odontology
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2022 Mar 31
PMID 35355145
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Membrane exposure is a widely reported and relatively common complication in Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) procedures. The introduction of micro-porous dPTFE barriers, which are impervious to bacterial cells, could reduce the technique sensitivity to membrane exposure, even if there are no studies investigating the potential passage of bacterial metabolites through the barrier. Aim of this study was the in vitro evaluation of the permeability of three different GBR membranes (dPTFE, native and cross-linked collagen membranes) to Porphyromonas gingivalis; in those cases, where bacterial penetration could not be observed, another purpose was the analysis of the viability and differentiation capability of an osteosarcoma (U2OS) cell line in presence of bacteria eluate obtained through membrane percolation. A system leading to the percolation of P. gingivalis broth culture through the experimental membranes was arranged to assess the permeability to bacteria after 24 and 72 h of incubation. The obtained solution was then added to U2OS cell cultures which underwent, after 10 days of incubation, MTT and red alizarin essays. The dPTFE membrane showed resistance to bacterial penetration, while both types of collagen membranes were crossed by P. gingivalis after 24 h. The bacteria eluate filtered through dPTFE membrane didn't show any toxicity on U2OS cells. Results of this study demonstrate that dPTFE membranes can contrast the penetration of both P. gingivalis and its metabolites toxic for osteoblast-like cells. The toxicity analysis was not possible for the collagen membranes, since permeability to bacterial cells was observed within the first period of incubation.

Citing Articles

A Novel Device for the Evaluation of In Vitro Bacterial Colonization in Membranes for Guided Tissue and Bone Regeneration.

Gil A, Merino E, Costa D, Giracca C, Mazzon R, Magrin G Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(7).

PMID: 39056989 PMC: 11275268. DOI: 10.3390/dj12070202.

References
1.
Spray J, Black C, Morris H, Ochi S . The influence of bone thickness on facial marginal bone response: stage 1 placement through stage 2 uncovering. Ann Periodontol. 2002; 5(1):119-28. DOI: 10.1902/annals.2000.5.1.119. View

2.
Tarnow D, Cho S, Wallace S . The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol. 2000; 71(4):546-9. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2000.71.4.546. View

3.
Hammerle C, Jung R, Feloutzis A . A systematic review of the survival of implants in bone sites augmented with barrier membranes (guided bone regeneration) in partially edentulous patients. J Clin Periodontol. 2003; 29 Suppl 3:226-31; discussion 232-3. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.29.s3.14.x. View

4.
Aghaloo T, Moy P . Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement?. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008; 22 Suppl:49-70. View

5.
Melcher A . On the repair potential of periodontal tissues. J Periodontol. 1976; 47(5):256-60. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1976.47.5.256. View