Superficial topography and porosity of an absorbable barrier membrane impacts soft tissue response in guided bone regeneration.

BACKGROUND Surface topography and porosity of barrier membranes is suggested to impact the soft and hard tissue response. In this study, the specific soft and hard tissue response characteristics of a synthetic polylactide membrane are evaluated including soft tissue inflammation, osteogenesis, and osteopromotion. METHODS Analysis of porosity and surface topography of the test material was performed by scanning electron microscopy. Transosseous parietal defects were surgically created bilaterally in 32 BalbC/ByJ mice and treated either with the barrier (test) or sham-operated (control). Healing was assessed histologically and histomorphometrically with quantification of bone bridging. RESULTS Scanning electron microscopy analyses of the barrier revealed a microstructure resembling cancellous bone. Interconnecting pores and channels, measuring between 6 and 60 microm in diameter, formed by smooth internal walls were observed throughout the device. Two distinct patterns of porosity were observed. The external surface of the membrane was characterized by a highly porous structure, with minimal interporous nodes and average pore sizes ranging between 6 and 20 microm in diameter. The internal surface was characterized by a minimal porous structure, with significant interporous nodes and average pore sizes ranging between 18 and 60 mum in diameter. Histomorphometric analyses demonstrated increased bone bridging by 60% and 300% in membrane-treated sites after 14 and 28 days of healing, respectively. The rough surface of the barrier contained significantly more giant cells, whereas the smooth surface contained significantly more inflammatory cells. CONCLUSION The surface topographies engineered on different sides of the barrier promote differential soft tissue responses leading, however, to similar amounts of enhanced bone formation.

[1]  M. Chiapasco,et al.  Clinical outcomes of GBR procedures to correct peri-implant dehiscences and fenestrations: a systematic review. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[2]  A. Bartolucci,et al.  Barrier membranes used for ridge augmentation: is there an optimal pore size? , 2009, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[3]  F. Schwarz,et al.  Regeneration of periodontal tissues: combinations of barrier membranes and grafting materials - biological foundation and preclinical evidence: a systematic review. , 2008, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[4]  F. Fontana,et al.  Clinical outcomes of vertical bone augmentation to enable dental implant placement: a systematic review. , 2008, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[5]  V. Chadha,et al.  Clinical outcomes of implants following lateral bone augmentation: systematic assessment of available options (barrier membranes, bone grafts, split osteotomy). , 2008, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[6]  H. Issever,et al.  Biocompatibility of different barrier membranes in cultures of human CRL 11372 osteoblast-like cells: an immunohistochemical study. , 2007, Clinical oral implants research.

[7]  P. Trackman,et al.  Controlled release of fibroblast growth factor 2 stimulates bone healing in an animal model of diabetes mellitus. , 2006, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[8]  H. Burt,et al.  A PLGA membrane controlling cell behaviour for promoting tissue regeneration. , 2005, Biomaterials.

[9]  F. Schwarz,et al.  Biodegradation of differently cross-linked collagen membranes: an experimental study in the rat. , 2005, Clinical oral implants research.

[10]  W. Scherbaum,et al.  Biocompatibility of various collagen membranes in cultures of human PDL fibroblasts and human osteoblast-like cells. , 2004, Clinical oral implants research.

[11]  Hsein-Kun Lu,et al.  Comparison of Th1/Th2 cytokine profiles of initial wound healing of rats induced by PDCM and e-PTFE. , 2004, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[12]  K. G. Murphy,et al.  Guided tissue regeneration for the treatment of periodontal intrabony and furcation defects. A systematic review. , 2003, Annals of periodontology.

[13]  D. Graves,et al.  A role for advanced glycation end products in diminished bone healing in type 1 diabetes. , 2003, Diabetes.

[14]  S. Eisig,et al.  Alveolar ridge augmentation using titanium micromesh: an experimental study in dogs. , 2003, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[15]  M. Quirynen,et al.  Bone augmentation by means of a stiff occlusive titanium barrier. , 2003, Clinical oral implants research.

[16]  T. Takata,et al.  Initial attachment of osteoblasts to various guided bone regeneration membranes: an in vitro study. , 2002, Journal of periodontal research.

[17]  A. Heinecke,et al.  PMN responses following use of 2 biodegradable GTR membranes. , 2001, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[18]  T. Takata,et al.  Attachment, proliferation and differentiation of periodontal ligament cells on various guided tissue regeneration membranes. , 2001, Journal of periodontal research.

[19]  T. Takata,et al.  Migration of osteoblastic cells on various guided bone regeneration membranes. , 2001, Clinical oral implants research.

[20]  T. Grisar,et al.  Culture of gingival fibroblasts on bioabsorbable regenerative materials in vitro. , 1999, Journal of periodontology.

[21]  J. Brekke,et al.  The use of biodegradable polylactic acid barrier materials in the treatment of grade II periodontal furcation defects in humans--Part II: A multicenter investigative surgical study. , 1999, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[22]  D. Lundgren,et al.  Influence of barrier occlusiveness on guided bone augmentation. An experimental study in the rat. , 1998, Clinical oral implants research.

[23]  J. Butler,et al.  Volumetric changes following barrier regeneration procedures for the surgical management of grade II molar furcation defects in baboons: II. Bone, cementum, epithelium, and connective tissue. , 1998, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[24]  G. E. Oxford,et al.  Treatment of 3rd molar-induced periodontal defects with guided tissue regeneration. , 1997, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[25]  P. Klokkevold,et al.  A bone regenerative approach to alveolar ridge maintenance following tooth extraction. Report of 10 cases. , 1997, Journal of periodontology.

[26]  P. Krasner,et al.  Endodontic applications of guided tissue regeneration in endodontic surgery. , 1996, Oral health.

[27]  C. Cobb,et al.  Migration of human gingival fibroblasts over guided tissue regeneration barrier materials. , 1996, Journal of periodontology.

[28]  Conner Hd Bone grafting with a calcium sulfate barrier after root amputation. , 1996 .

[29]  M. Roccuzzo,et al.  Comparative study of a bioresorbable and a non-resorbable membrane in the treatment of human buccal gingival recessions. , 1996, Journal of periodontology.

[30]  J. Meltzer,et al.  Repair of a defect following the removal of a maxillary adenomatoid odontogenic tumor using guided tissue regeneration. A case report. , 1996, Journal of periodontology.

[31]  A. Linde,et al.  Effects of different osteopromotive membrane porosities on experimental bone neogenesis in rats. , 1996, Biomaterials.

[32]  S. Nyman,et al.  Augmentation of intramembraneous bone beyond the skeletal envelope using an occlusive titanium barrier. An experimental study in the rabbit. , 1995, Clinical oral implants research.

[33]  R. Nordquist,et al.  Evaluation of the potential of a polylactic acid barrier for correction of periodontal defects in baboons: a clinical and histologic study. , 1995, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[34]  T. Karring,et al.  Formation of jawbone tuberosities by guided tissue regeneration. An experimental study in the rat. , 1994, Clinical oral implants research.

[35]  N. Lang,et al.  Membrane permeability is unnecessary for guided generation of new bone. An experimental study in the rabbit. , 1994, Clinical oral implants research.

[36]  T. Karring,et al.  Augmentation of the rat mandible using guided tissue regeneration. , 1994, Clinical oral implants research.

[37]  D. Zaffe,et al.  A comparative study of the effectiveness of e-PTFE membranes with and without early exposure during the healing period. , 1994, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[38]  Todd V Scantlebury,et al.  1982-1992: A Decade of Technology Development for Guided Tissue Regeneration. , 1993, Journal of periodontology.

[39]  T. Waldrop,et al.  Closure of oroantral communication using guided tissue regeneration and an absorbable gelatin membrane. , 1993, Journal of periodontology.

[40]  U. Lekholm,et al.  The role of early versus late removal of GTAM membranes on bone formation at oral implants placed into immediate extraction sockets. An experimental study in dogs. , 1993, Clinical oral implants research.

[41]  M. Hürzeler,et al.  Autotransplantation of a tooth using guided tissue regeneration. , 1993, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[42]  C. Dahlin,et al.  Bone augmentation at fenestrated implants by an osteopromotive membrane technique. A controlled clinical study. , 1991, Clinical oral implants research.

[43]  G. R. Persson,et al.  Migration of epithelial cells on materials used in guided tissue regeneration. , 1990, Journal of periodontal research.

[44]  U. Lekholm,et al.  Generation of new bone around titanium implants using a membrane technique: an experimental study in rabbits. , 1989, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[45]  S. Nyman,et al.  Healing of Bone Defects by Guided Tissue Regeneration , 1988, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.