In vivo biodegradation rates of domestic membranes for guided tissue regeneration

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

Background: Experimental research is required to provide guidelines for the use of domestic biodegradable membranes.

Aim: To assess the swelling index and biodegradation rate of barrier membranes (non-collagen and collagen) for guided tissue regeneration in vitro, as well as their biocompatibility in vivo.

Materials and Methods: The swelling index of two types of membranes was assessed after 24 h of exposure to phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) at different pH levels (6.50 and 7.37). The spontaneous degradation rate of the two types of membranes was assessed; changes in their weight following exposure to PBS at different pH levels (6.50 and 7.37) were measured at predetermined time points. Moreover, the biocompatibility of two membrane samples following subcutaneous implantation in B/D male mice was assessed.

Results: The swelling index of non-collagen membranes was higher at neutral pH compared to acidic pH: 7.7 for pH 7.37 vs 7.2 for pH 6.50. For collagen membranes, the swelling index was pH-independent. There were no differences in membrane weight loss following exposure to PBS at pH 6.5 during 8 weeks. During the first two weeks, collagen membranes had a higher resorption rate at pH 7.37 than non-collagen membranes. Following subcutaneous implantation of both membranes, histopathological specimens collected two weeks after surgery revealed the formation of foreign body granulomas with well-defined boundaries around the implants. Macrophages, monocytes, single giant cells of foreign bodies, and Pirogov–Langhans giant cells were detected, with the number gradually increasing over time.

Conclusion: Non-collagen membranes had a larger swelling index than collagen membranes, which depended on pH. At pH 7.37, collagen membranes had a higher resorption rate during the first two weeks compared to non-collagen membranes. In vitro weight loss after 8 weeks was 20–30% for both membranes, regardless of pH. Subcutaneous implantation in mice confirmed the biocompatibility of the membranes. The biodegradation rate of non-collagen membranes was higher than that of collagen membranes.

About the authors

Alexandr G. Stepanov

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba

Author for correspondence.
Email: stepanovmd@list.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6543-0998
SPIN-code: 5848-6077

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Associate Professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

Samvel V. Apresyan

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba

Email: dr.apresyan@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3281-707X
SPIN-code: 6317-9002

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Associate Professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

Georgii K. Zakharyan

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba

Email: dr.zakharyan@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0003-0031-670X
SPIN-code: 1623-9505
Russian Federation, Moscow

Sergey V. Bersenev

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba

Email: bsv5252@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9798-0241
SPIN-code: 7273-0266

MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine), Associate Professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Scantlebury TV. 1982–1992: a decade of technology development for guided tissue regeneration. J Periodontol. 1993;64 Suppl. 11S:1129–1137. doi: 10.1902/jop.1993.64.11s.1129
  2. Gentile P, Chiono V, Tonda-Turo C, et al. Polymeric membranes for guided bone regeneration. Biotechnol J. 2011;6(10):1187–1197. doi: 10.1002/biot.201100294
  3. Zakharyan GK, Stepanov AG, Apresyan SV. Barrier membrane in dental practice. Russian Bulletin of Dental Implantology. 2022;(3-4):66–75. EDN: MQSLIK
  4. Khojasteh A, Kheiri L, Motamedian SR, Khoshkam V. Guided bone regeneration for the reconstruction of alveolar bone defects. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2017;7(2):263–277. doi: 10.4103/ams.ams_76_17
  5. Bartee BK. Evaluation of a new polytetrafluoroethylene guided tissue regeneration membrane in healing extraction sites. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1998;19(12):1256–1258, 1260, 1262–1264.
  6. Watzinger F, Luksch J, Millesi W, et al. Guided bone regeneration with titanium membranes: a clinical study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;38(4):312–315. doi: 10.1054/bjom.1999.0228
  7. Rakhmatia YD, Ayukawa Y, Furuhashi A, Koyano K. Current barrier membranes: titanium mesh and other membranes for guided bone regeneration in dental applications. J Prosthodont Res. 2013;57(1):3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2012.12.001
  8. Lundgren D, Sennerby L, Falk H, et al. The use of a new bioresorbable barrier for guided bone regeneration in connection with implant installation. Case reports. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994;5(3):177–184. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050309.x
  9. Mayfield L, Nobréus N, Attström R, Linde A. Guided bone regeneration in dental implant treatment using a bioabsorbable membrane. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8(1):10–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.1997.tb00002.x
  10. Geurs NC, Korostoff JM, Vassilopoulos PJ, et al. Clinical and histologic assessment of lateral alveolar ridge augmentation using a synthetic longterm bioabsorbable membrane and an allograft. J Periodontol. 2008;79(7):1133–1140. doi: 10.1902/jop.2008.070595
  11. Simion M, Scarano A, Gionso L, Piattelli A. Guided bone regeneration using resorbable and nonresorbable membranes: a comparative histologic study in humans. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11(6):735–742.
  12. Sung HJ, Meredith C, Johnson C, Galis ZS. The effect of scaffold degradation rate on three-dimensional cell growth and angiogenesis. Biomaterials. 2004;25(26):5735–542. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.01.066
  13. Casalini T, Rossi F, Castrovinci A, Perale G. A perspective on polylactic acid-based polymers use for nanoparticles synthesis and applications. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:259. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00259
  14. Metsuku I, Muraev AA, Gazhva YuV, Ivashkevich SG. Comparative characteristics of various types of membranes used for bone grafting and guided tissue regeneration in dentistry and maxillofacial surgery. Russian Journal of Dentistry. 2017;21(5):291–296. EDN: ZSJHKZ doi: 10.18821/1728-2802-2017-21-5-291-296
  15. Apresyan SV, Stepanov AG, Yakhyaev IM, et al. Experimental substantiation of the effectiveness of using a new domestic bioresorbable membrane for directed tissue regeneration. Russian Bulletin of Dental Implantology. 2020;(3–4):25–31. EDN: PWEWWR
  16. Zakharyan GK, Stepanov AG, Apresyan SV. Physical and mechanical properties bioresorbable membranes used for guided bone regeneration. Russian Bulletin of Dental Implantology. 2023;(2):18–24. EDN: YFYOEY

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Dynamics degradation in vitro of collagen-free (1) and collagen membrane (2) samples in phosphate-salt buffer at pH 6.50 (a) and pH 7.37 (b).

Download (123KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. Macro preparation of membranes for directed regeneration by subdermal implantation in mice at different follow-up times.

Download (571KB)
Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 3. Microphotograph of collagen-free membrane after 2 weeks its subdermal implantation, staining — azure-eosin: 1 — foreign body granuloma; 2 — collagen-free membrane; 3 — blood vessels; 4 — foreign body giant cells; 5 — Pirogov–Langhans giant cells.

Download (332KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Fig. 4. Microphotograph of the collagen-free membrane after 4 weeks its subdermal implantation, staining — azur-eosin: 1 — foreign body granuloma; 2 — collagen-free membrane; 3 — Pirogov–Langhans giant cells; 4 — foreign body giant cells; 5 — blood vessels.

Download (615KB)
Indexing metadata
6. Fig. 5. Microphotograph of collagen-free membrane after 8 weeks its subdermal implantation, staining — azure-eosin: 1 — foreign body granuloma; 2 — remains of collagen-free membrane; 3 — giant cells of foreign bodies; 4 — giant cells of Pirogov–Langhans; 5 — blood vessels.

Download (691KB)
Indexing metadata
7. Fig. 6. Microphotograph of collagen membrane after 2 weeks its subdermal implantation, staining — azur-eosin: 1 — granuloma of foreign body; 2 — collagen membrane; 3 — giant cells of Pirogov–Langhans; 4 — blood vessels.

Download (643KB)
Indexing metadata
8. Fig. 7. Microphotograph of collagen membrane after 4 weeks its subdermal implantation, staining — azure-eosin: 1 — foreign body granuloma; 2 — remains of collagen membrane; 3 — giant cells of Pirogov–Langhans; 4 — giant cells of foreign bodies; 5 — blood vessels.

Download (437KB)
Indexing metadata
9. Fig. 8. Microphotograph of collagen membrane after 8 weeks its subdermal implantation, staining — azure-eosin: 1 — foreign body granuloma; 2 — collagen membrane; 3 — giant cells of Pirogov–Langhans; 4 — giant cells of foreign bodies; 5 — blood vessels.

Download (393KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2024 Eco-Vector

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
 


Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).