» Articles » PMID: 38201760

Regeneration Membranes Loaded with Non-Antibiotic Anti-2 Microbials: A Review

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2024 Jan 11
PMID 38201760
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Both guided bone and guided tissue regeneration are techniques that require the use of barrier membranes. Contamination and infection of the surgical area is one of the most feared complications. Some current lines of research focus on functionalizing these membranes with different antimicrobial agents. The objective of this study was to carry out a review of the use and antibacterial properties of regeneration membranes doped with antimicrobials such as zinc, silver, chlorhexidine, and lauric acid. The protocol was based on PRISMA recommendations, addressing the PICO question: "Do membranes doped with non-antibiotic antimicrobials have antibacterial activity that can reduce or improve infection compared to membranes not impregnated with said antimicrobial?" Methodological quality was evaluated using the RoBDEMAT tool. A total of 329 articles were found, of which 25 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Most studies agree that zinc inhibits bacterial growth as it decreases colony-forming units, depending on the concentration used and the bacterial species studied. Silver compounds also decreased the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines and presented less bacterial adhesion to the membrane. Some concentrations of chlorhexidine that possess antimicrobial activity have shown high toxicity. Finally, lauric acid shows inhibition of bacterial growth measured by the disk diffusion test, the inhibition zone being larger with higher concentrations. Antimicrobial agents such as zinc, silver, chlorhexidine, and lauric acid have effective antibacterial activity and can be used to dope regenerative membranes in order to reduce the risk of bacterial colonization.

Citing Articles

In Vitro Degradation of Collagen-Based Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration After Zn-Ions or Doxycycline Functionalization.

Vallecillo C, Osorio M, Infante N, Avalos M, Vallecillo-Rivas M, Lynch C Polymers (Basel). 2024; 16(22).

PMID: 39599201 PMC: 11598064. DOI: 10.3390/polym16223109.

References
1.
Sasaki J, Abe G, Li A, Thongthai P, Tsuboi R, Kohno T . Barrier membranes for tissue regeneration in dentistry. Biomater Investig Dent. 2021; 8(1):54-63. PMC: 8158285. DOI: 10.1080/26415275.2021.1925556. View

2.
Chen Y, Hung S, Lin L, Chi L, Ling L . Attachment of periodontal ligament cells to chlorhexidine-loaded guided tissue regeneration membranes. J Periodontol. 2003; 74(11):1652-9. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2003.74.11.1652. View

3.
Cooperman L, Michaeli D . The immunogenicity of injectable collagen. I. A 1-year prospective study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1984; 10(4):638-46. DOI: 10.1016/s0190-9622(84)80271-6. View

4.
Zhong M, Lin J, Yang Y, Liu M, Guo G, Ji D . Bi-layered nanofibrous membrane with osteogenic and antibacterial functions for periodontal tissue regeneration. J Biomater Appl. 2022; 36(9):1588-1598. DOI: 10.1177/08853282211068596. View

5.
Thomas N, Sanil G, Gopimohan R, Prabhakaran J, Thomas G, Panda A . Biocompatibility and cytotoxic evaluation of drug-loaded biodegradable guided tissue regeneration membranes. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2013; 16(4):498-503. PMC: 3590715. DOI: 10.4103/0972-124X.106883. View