Cargando…

Is the Bacterial Cellulose Membrane Feasible for Osteopromotive Property?

Guided bone regeneration was studied to establish protocols and develop new biomaterials that revealed satisfactory results. The present study aimed to comparatively evaluate the efficiency of the bacterial cellulose membrane (Nanoskin(®)) and collagen membrane Bio-Gide(®) in the bone repair of 8-mm...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Farnezi Bassi, Ana Paula, Bizelli, Vinícius Ferreira, Brasil, Leticia Freitas de Mendes, Pereira, Járede Carvalho, Al-Sharani, Hesham Mohammed, Momesso, Gustavo Antonio Correa, Faverani, Leonardo P., Lucas, Flavia de Almeida
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7558580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32932731
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes10090230
_version_ 1783594670636400640
author Farnezi Bassi, Ana Paula
Bizelli, Vinícius Ferreira
Brasil, Leticia Freitas de Mendes
Pereira, Járede Carvalho
Al-Sharani, Hesham Mohammed
Momesso, Gustavo Antonio Correa
Faverani, Leonardo P.
Lucas, Flavia de Almeida
author_facet Farnezi Bassi, Ana Paula
Bizelli, Vinícius Ferreira
Brasil, Leticia Freitas de Mendes
Pereira, Járede Carvalho
Al-Sharani, Hesham Mohammed
Momesso, Gustavo Antonio Correa
Faverani, Leonardo P.
Lucas, Flavia de Almeida
author_sort Farnezi Bassi, Ana Paula
collection PubMed
description Guided bone regeneration was studied to establish protocols and develop new biomaterials that revealed satisfactory results. The present study aimed to comparatively evaluate the efficiency of the bacterial cellulose membrane (Nanoskin(®)) and collagen membrane Bio-Gide(®) in the bone repair of 8-mm critical size defects in rat calvaria. Seventy-two adult male rats were divided into three experimental groups (n = 24): the CG—membrane-free control group (only blood clot, negative control), BG—porcine collagen membrane group (Bio-Guide(®), positive control), and BC—bacterial cellulose membrane group (experimental group). The comparison periods were 7, 15, 30, and 60 days postoperatively. Histological, histometric, and immunohistochemical analyses were performed. The quantitative data were subjected to 2-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-test, and p < 0.05 was considered significant. At 30 and 60 days postoperatively, the BG group showed more healing of the surgical wound than the other groups, with a high amount of newly formed bone (p < 0.001), while the BC group showed mature connective tissue filling the defect. The inflammatory cell count at postoperative days 7 and 15 was higher in the BC group than in the BG group (Tukey’s test, p = 0.006). At postoperative days 30 and 60, the area of new bone formed was greater in the BG group than in the other groups (p < 0.001). Immunohistochemical analysis showed moderate and intense immunolabeling of osteocalcin and osteopontin at postoperative day 60 in the BG and BC groups. Thus, despite the promising application of the BC membrane in soft-tissue repair, it did not induce bone repair in rat calvaria.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7558580
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75585802020-10-26 Is the Bacterial Cellulose Membrane Feasible for Osteopromotive Property? Farnezi Bassi, Ana Paula Bizelli, Vinícius Ferreira Brasil, Leticia Freitas de Mendes Pereira, Járede Carvalho Al-Sharani, Hesham Mohammed Momesso, Gustavo Antonio Correa Faverani, Leonardo P. Lucas, Flavia de Almeida Membranes (Basel) Article Guided bone regeneration was studied to establish protocols and develop new biomaterials that revealed satisfactory results. The present study aimed to comparatively evaluate the efficiency of the bacterial cellulose membrane (Nanoskin(®)) and collagen membrane Bio-Gide(®) in the bone repair of 8-mm critical size defects in rat calvaria. Seventy-two adult male rats were divided into three experimental groups (n = 24): the CG—membrane-free control group (only blood clot, negative control), BG—porcine collagen membrane group (Bio-Guide(®), positive control), and BC—bacterial cellulose membrane group (experimental group). The comparison periods were 7, 15, 30, and 60 days postoperatively. Histological, histometric, and immunohistochemical analyses were performed. The quantitative data were subjected to 2-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-test, and p < 0.05 was considered significant. At 30 and 60 days postoperatively, the BG group showed more healing of the surgical wound than the other groups, with a high amount of newly formed bone (p < 0.001), while the BC group showed mature connective tissue filling the defect. The inflammatory cell count at postoperative days 7 and 15 was higher in the BC group than in the BG group (Tukey’s test, p = 0.006). At postoperative days 30 and 60, the area of new bone formed was greater in the BG group than in the other groups (p < 0.001). Immunohistochemical analysis showed moderate and intense immunolabeling of osteocalcin and osteopontin at postoperative day 60 in the BG and BC groups. Thus, despite the promising application of the BC membrane in soft-tissue repair, it did not induce bone repair in rat calvaria. MDPI 2020-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7558580/ /pubmed/32932731 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes10090230 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Farnezi Bassi, Ana Paula
Bizelli, Vinícius Ferreira
Brasil, Leticia Freitas de Mendes
Pereira, Járede Carvalho
Al-Sharani, Hesham Mohammed
Momesso, Gustavo Antonio Correa
Faverani, Leonardo P.
Lucas, Flavia de Almeida
Is the Bacterial Cellulose Membrane Feasible for Osteopromotive Property?
title Is the Bacterial Cellulose Membrane Feasible for Osteopromotive Property?
title_full Is the Bacterial Cellulose Membrane Feasible for Osteopromotive Property?
title_fullStr Is the Bacterial Cellulose Membrane Feasible for Osteopromotive Property?
title_full_unstemmed Is the Bacterial Cellulose Membrane Feasible for Osteopromotive Property?
title_short Is the Bacterial Cellulose Membrane Feasible for Osteopromotive Property?
title_sort is the bacterial cellulose membrane feasible for osteopromotive property?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7558580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32932731
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes10090230
work_keys_str_mv AT farnezibassianapaula isthebacterialcellulosemembranefeasibleforosteopromotiveproperty
AT bizelliviniciusferreira isthebacterialcellulosemembranefeasibleforosteopromotiveproperty
AT brasilleticiafreitasdemendes isthebacterialcellulosemembranefeasibleforosteopromotiveproperty
AT pereirajaredecarvalho isthebacterialcellulosemembranefeasibleforosteopromotiveproperty
AT alsharaniheshammohammed isthebacterialcellulosemembranefeasibleforosteopromotiveproperty
AT momessogustavoantoniocorrea isthebacterialcellulosemembranefeasibleforosteopromotiveproperty
AT faveranileonardop isthebacterialcellulosemembranefeasibleforosteopromotiveproperty
AT lucasflaviadealmeida isthebacterialcellulosemembranefeasibleforosteopromotiveproperty