Cargando…

The effect of bacterial cellulose membrane compared with collagen membrane on guided bone regeneration

PURPOSE: This study was to evaluate the effects of bacterial cellulose (BC) membranes as a barrier membrane on guided bone regeneration (GBR) in comparison with those of the resorbable collagen membranes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: BC membranes were fabricated using biomimetic technology. Surface proper...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, So-Hyoun, Lim, Youn-Mook, Jeong, Sung In, An, Sung-Jun, Kang, Seong-Soo, Jeong, Chang-Mo, Huh, Jung-Bo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4722153/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26816579
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.484
_version_ 1782411331863838720
author Lee, So-Hyoun
Lim, Youn-Mook
Jeong, Sung In
An, Sung-Jun
Kang, Seong-Soo
Jeong, Chang-Mo
Huh, Jung-Bo
author_facet Lee, So-Hyoun
Lim, Youn-Mook
Jeong, Sung In
An, Sung-Jun
Kang, Seong-Soo
Jeong, Chang-Mo
Huh, Jung-Bo
author_sort Lee, So-Hyoun
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: This study was to evaluate the effects of bacterial cellulose (BC) membranes as a barrier membrane on guided bone regeneration (GBR) in comparison with those of the resorbable collagen membranes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: BC membranes were fabricated using biomimetic technology. Surface properties were analyzed, Mechanical properties were measured, in vitro cell proliferation test were performed with NIH3T3 cells and in vivo study were performed with rat calvarial defect and histomorphometric analysis was done. The Mann-Whitney U test and the Wilcoxon signed rank test was used (α<.05). RESULTS: BC membrane showed significantly higher mechanical properties such as wet tensile strength than collagen membrane and represented a three-dimensional multilayered structure cross-linked by nano-fibers with 60 % porosity. In vitro study, cell adhesion and proliferation were observed on BC membrane. However, morphology of the cells was found to be less differentiated, and the cell proliferation rate was lower than those of the cells on collagen membrane. In vivo study, the grafted BC membrane did not induce inflammatory response, and maintained adequate space for bone regeneration. An amount of new bone formation in defect region loaded with BC membrane was significantly similar to that of collagen membrane application. CONCLUSION: BC membrane has potential to be used as a barrier membrane, and efficacy of the membrane on GBR is comparable to that of collagen membrane.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4722153
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47221532016-01-26 The effect of bacterial cellulose membrane compared with collagen membrane on guided bone regeneration Lee, So-Hyoun Lim, Youn-Mook Jeong, Sung In An, Sung-Jun Kang, Seong-Soo Jeong, Chang-Mo Huh, Jung-Bo J Adv Prosthodont Original Article PURPOSE: This study was to evaluate the effects of bacterial cellulose (BC) membranes as a barrier membrane on guided bone regeneration (GBR) in comparison with those of the resorbable collagen membranes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: BC membranes were fabricated using biomimetic technology. Surface properties were analyzed, Mechanical properties were measured, in vitro cell proliferation test were performed with NIH3T3 cells and in vivo study were performed with rat calvarial defect and histomorphometric analysis was done. The Mann-Whitney U test and the Wilcoxon signed rank test was used (α<.05). RESULTS: BC membrane showed significantly higher mechanical properties such as wet tensile strength than collagen membrane and represented a three-dimensional multilayered structure cross-linked by nano-fibers with 60 % porosity. In vitro study, cell adhesion and proliferation were observed on BC membrane. However, morphology of the cells was found to be less differentiated, and the cell proliferation rate was lower than those of the cells on collagen membrane. In vivo study, the grafted BC membrane did not induce inflammatory response, and maintained adequate space for bone regeneration. An amount of new bone formation in defect region loaded with BC membrane was significantly similar to that of collagen membrane application. CONCLUSION: BC membrane has potential to be used as a barrier membrane, and efficacy of the membrane on GBR is comparable to that of collagen membrane. The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics 2015-12 2015-12-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4722153/ /pubmed/26816579 http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.484 Text en © 2015 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Lee, So-Hyoun
Lim, Youn-Mook
Jeong, Sung In
An, Sung-Jun
Kang, Seong-Soo
Jeong, Chang-Mo
Huh, Jung-Bo
The effect of bacterial cellulose membrane compared with collagen membrane on guided bone regeneration
title The effect of bacterial cellulose membrane compared with collagen membrane on guided bone regeneration
title_full The effect of bacterial cellulose membrane compared with collagen membrane on guided bone regeneration
title_fullStr The effect of bacterial cellulose membrane compared with collagen membrane on guided bone regeneration
title_full_unstemmed The effect of bacterial cellulose membrane compared with collagen membrane on guided bone regeneration
title_short The effect of bacterial cellulose membrane compared with collagen membrane on guided bone regeneration
title_sort effect of bacterial cellulose membrane compared with collagen membrane on guided bone regeneration
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4722153/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26816579
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.484
work_keys_str_mv AT leesohyoun theeffectofbacterialcellulosemembranecomparedwithcollagenmembraneonguidedboneregeneration
AT limyounmook theeffectofbacterialcellulosemembranecomparedwithcollagenmembraneonguidedboneregeneration
AT jeongsungin theeffectofbacterialcellulosemembranecomparedwithcollagenmembraneonguidedboneregeneration
AT ansungjun theeffectofbacterialcellulosemembranecomparedwithcollagenmembraneonguidedboneregeneration
AT kangseongsoo theeffectofbacterialcellulosemembranecomparedwithcollagenmembraneonguidedboneregeneration
AT jeongchangmo theeffectofbacterialcellulosemembranecomparedwithcollagenmembraneonguidedboneregeneration
AT huhjungbo theeffectofbacterialcellulosemembranecomparedwithcollagenmembraneonguidedboneregeneration
AT leesohyoun effectofbacterialcellulosemembranecomparedwithcollagenmembraneonguidedboneregeneration
AT limyounmook effectofbacterialcellulosemembranecomparedwithcollagenmembraneonguidedboneregeneration
AT jeongsungin effectofbacterialcellulosemembranecomparedwithcollagenmembraneonguidedboneregeneration
AT ansungjun effectofbacterialcellulosemembranecomparedwithcollagenmembraneonguidedboneregeneration
AT kangseongsoo effectofbacterialcellulosemembranecomparedwithcollagenmembraneonguidedboneregeneration
AT jeongchangmo effectofbacterialcellulosemembranecomparedwithcollagenmembraneonguidedboneregeneration
AT huhjungbo effectofbacterialcellulosemembranecomparedwithcollagenmembraneonguidedboneregeneration