Systematic evaluation of three porcine-derived collagen membranes for guided bone regeneration

Guided bone regeneration is one of the most common surgical treatment modalities performed when an additional alveolar bone is required to stabilize dental implants in partially and fully edentulous patients. The addition of a barrier membrane prevents non-osteogenic tissue invasion into the bone cavity, which is key to the success of guided bone regeneration. Barrier membranes can be broadly classified as non-resorbable or resorbable. In contrast to non-resorbable membranes, resorbable barrier membranes do not require a second surgical procedure for membrane removal. Commercially available resorbable barrier membranes are either synthetically manufactured or derived from xenogeneic collagen. Although collagen barrier membranes have become increasingly popular amongst clinicians, largely due to their superior handling qualities compared to other commercially available barrier membranes, there have been no studies to date that have compared commercially available porcine-derived collagen membranes with respect to surface topography, collagen fibril structure, physical barrier property, and immunogenic composition. This study evaluated three commercially available non-crosslinked porcine-derived collagen membranes (Striate+(TM), Bio-Gide(®) and Creos(TM) Xenoprotect). Scanning electron microscopy revealed similar collagen fibril distribution on both the rough and smooth sides of the membranes as well as the similar diameters of collagen fibrils. However, D-periodicity of the fibrillar collagen is significantly different among the membranes, with Striate+(TM) membrane having the closest D-periodicity to native collagen I. This suggests that there is less deformation of collagen during manufacturing process. All collagen membranes showed superior barrier property evidenced by blocking 0.2–16.4 μm beads passing through the membranes. To examine the immunogenic agents in these membranes, we examined the membranes for the presence of DNA and alpha-gal by immunohistochemistry. No alpha-gal or DNA was detected in any membranes. However, using a more sensitive detection method (real-time polymerase chain reaction), a relatively strong DNA signal was detected in Bio-Gide(®) membrane, but not Striate+(TM) and Creos(TM) Xenoprotect membranes. Our study concluded that these membranes are similar but not identical, probably due to the different ages and sources of porcine tissues, as well as different manufacturing processes. We recommend further studies to understand the clinical implications of these findings.