A Flexible Membrane May Improve Bone Regeneration by Increasing Hydrophilicity and Conformability in Lateral Bone Augmentation

Overview

Journal Biomater Res

Specialty Biomedical Engineering

Date 2024 Nov 19

PMID 39559494

Authors

Dongseob Lee

Young-Chang Ko

Ki-Tae Koo

Yang-Jo Seol

Yong-Moo Lee

Jungwon Lee

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Collagen membranes play a crucial role in guided bone regeneration (GBR) by preventing soft tissue infiltration and maintaining space for bone formation. This study investigated the impact of collagen membrane flexibility on GBR outcomes through in vitro and in vivo analyses. Flexible (0.3 mm in width) and stiff (0.5 mm in width) porcine collagen membranes were compared. In vitro tests assessed hydrophilicity, enzymatic degradation, conformability, space maintenance, and tensile strength. An in vivo study using a canine model evaluated bone regeneration in standardized mandibular defects filled with deproteinized porcine bone mineral and covered with no membrane, flexible membrane, or stiff membrane. Micro-computed tomography and histomorphometric analyses were performed at 8 and 16 weeks. The flexible membrane demonstrated superior hydrophilicity, faster enzymatic degradation, and greater conformability in vitro. In vivo, micro-computed tomography analysis revealed similar alveolar ridge widths across all groups. Histomorphometric analysis at 16 weeks showed significantly larger regenerated areas in the flexible membrane group compared to controls in coronal, middle, and apical regions. Both membrane groups exhibited higher regeneration ratios than controls, with significant differences in the coronal area. The flexible membrane group demonstrated significantly higher new bone formation in all regions compared to controls at 16 weeks. These findings suggest that flexible membrane substantially enhances GBR outcomes by increasing hydrophilicity and conformability. The study highlights the potential clinical benefits of incorporating flexible membranes in GBR procedures for improved bone regeneration outcomes.

References

Caballe-Serrano J, Munar-Frau A, Delgado L, Perez R, Hernandez-Alfaro F . Physicochemical characterization of barrier membranes for bone regeneration. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2019; 97:13-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.04.053. View

Urban I, Nagursky H, Lozada J, Nagy K . Horizontal ridge augmentation with a collagen membrane and a combination of particulated autogenous bone and anorganic bovine bone-derived mineral: a prospective case series in 25 patients. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013; 33(3):299-307. DOI: 10.11607/prd.1407. View

Han H, Lee J, Cho Y, Kim S . The activin/BMP-2 chimera AB204 promotes periodontal tissue regeneration in a buccal dehiscence model: a pilot study. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2024; 54(5):322-335. PMC: 11543333. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2303600180. View

Kim J, Schwarz F, Song H, Choi Y, Kang K, Koo K . Ridge preservation of extraction sockets with chronic pathology using Bio-Oss Collagen with or without collagen membrane: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 28(6):727-733. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12870. View

Lee J, An H, Im J, Kim W, Lee D, Yun J . Evaluation of the clinical and radiographic effectiveness of treating peri-implant bone defects with a new biphasic calcium phosphate bone graft: a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2023; 53(4):306-317. PMC: 10465810. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2300640032. View

Lee J, Jung E, Jeong S . Profilometric, volumetric, and esthetic analysis of guided bone regeneration with L-shaped collagenated bone substitute and connective tissue graft in the maxillary esthetic zone: A case series with 1-year observational study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022; 24(5):655-663. DOI: 10.1111/cid.13116. View

Di Raimondo R, Sanz-Esporrin J, Sanz-Martin I, Pla R, Luengo F, Vignoletti F . Hard and soft tissue changes after guided bone regeneration using two different barrier membranes: an experimental in vivo investigation. Clin Oral Investig. 2020; 25(4):2213-2227. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03537-5. View

Jung E, Jeong S, Lee J . Augmentation stability and early wound healing outcomes of guided bone regeneration in peri-implant dehiscence defects with L- and I-shaped soft block bone substitutes: A clinical and radiographic study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021; 32(11):1308-1317. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13830. View

Ahn J, Kim H, Bae E, Cho W, Choi Y, Hwang S . Evaluation of 1-Ethyl-3-(3-Dimethylaminopropyl) Carbodiimide Cross-Linked Collagen Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration in Beagle Dogs. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13(20). PMC: 7602868. DOI: 10.3390/ma13204599. View

10.

Sanz M, Ferrantino L, Vignoletti F, de Sanctis M, Berglundh T . Guided bone regeneration of non-contained mandibular buccal bone defects using deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a collagen membrane: an experimental in vivo investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28(11):1466-1476. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13014. View

11.

Heimes D, Pabst A, Becker P, Hartmann A, Kloss F, Tunkel J . Comparison of morbidity-related parameters between autologous and allogeneic bone grafts for alveolar ridge augmentation from patients' perspective-A questionnaire-based cohort study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023; 26(1):170-182. DOI: 10.1111/cid.13242. View

12.

Pesce P, Zubery Y, Goldlust A, Bayer T, Abundo R, Canullo L . Ossification and Bone Regeneration in a Canine GBR Model, Part 1: Thick vs Thin Glycated Cross-Linked Collagen Devices. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2023; 38(4):801-810. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.9820. View

13.

Zhang T, Zhang T, Cai X . The application of a newly designed L-shaped titanium mesh for GBR with simultaneous implant placement in the esthetic zone: A retrospective case series study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 21(5):862-872. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12726. View

14.

Tien H, Lee W, Kim C, Choi S, Gruber R, Lee J . Alveolar ridge regeneration in two-wall-damaged extraction sockets of an in vivo experimental model. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021; 32(8):971-979. PMC: 8453892. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13791. View

15.

Lee D, Koo K, Seol Y, Lee Y, Lee J . Comparison of osteogenesis and osseointegration following implant placement with simultaneous maxillary sinus augmentation using particulate and collagenated block types of deproteinized porcine bone mineral: a radiographic and histomorphometric.... Clin Oral Investig. 2023; 27(10):5865-5874. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05197-7. View

16.

Rocchietta I, Simion M, Hoffmann M, Trisciuoglio D, Benigni M, Dahlin C . Vertical Bone Augmentation with an Autogenous Block or Particles in Combination with Guided Bone Regeneration: A Clinical and Histological Preliminary Study in Humans. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 18(1):19-29. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12267. View

17.

Vallecillo-Rivas M, Toledano-Osorio M, Vallecillo C, Toledano M, Osorio R . The Collagen Origin Influences the Degradation Kinetics of Guided Bone Regeneration Membranes. Polymers (Basel). 2021; 13(17). PMC: 8433692. DOI: 10.3390/polym13173007. View

18.

Mir-Mari J, Wui H, Jung R, Hammerle C, Benic G . Influence of blinded wound closure on the volume stability of different GBR materials: an in vitro cone-beam computed tomographic examination. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 27(2):258-65. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12590. View

19.

Mir-Mari J, Benic G, Valmaseda-Castellon E, Hammerle C, Jung R . Influence of wound closure on the volume stability of particulate and non-particulate GBR materials: an in vitro cone-beam computed tomographic examination. Part II. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 28(6):631-639. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12845. View

20.

An M, Kim H, Choi J, Kim K, Lee Y, Rhyu I . The healing pattern of a 4 mm proximal infrabony defect was not significantly different from a 2 mm defect adjacent to dental implant in a canine mandible. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2022; 52(5):422-434. PMC: 9614175. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2106420321. View