Cargando…

Comparative barrier membrane degradation over time: Pericardium versus dermal membranes

OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of GBR procedures for the reconstruction of periodontal defects has been well documented. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the degradation kinetics and biocompatibility of two resorbable collagen membranes in conjunction with a bovine xenograft materia...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bornert, Fabien, Herber, Valentin, Sandgren, Rebecca, Witek, Lukasz, Coelho, Paulo G., Pippenger, Benjamin E., Shahdad, Shakeel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8543466/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33949796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.414
_version_ 1784589641754607616
author Bornert, Fabien
Herber, Valentin
Sandgren, Rebecca
Witek, Lukasz
Coelho, Paulo G.
Pippenger, Benjamin E.
Shahdad, Shakeel
author_facet Bornert, Fabien
Herber, Valentin
Sandgren, Rebecca
Witek, Lukasz
Coelho, Paulo G.
Pippenger, Benjamin E.
Shahdad, Shakeel
author_sort Bornert, Fabien
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of GBR procedures for the reconstruction of periodontal defects has been well documented. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the degradation kinetics and biocompatibility of two resorbable collagen membranes in conjunction with a bovine xenograft material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lower premolars and first molars were extracted from 18 male Yucatan minipigs. After 4 months of healing, standardized semi‐saddle defects were created (12 mm × 8 mm × 8 mm [l˙̇ × W˙ × d]), with 10 mm between adjacent defects. The defects were filled with a bovine xenograft and covered with a either the bilayer collagen membrane (control) or the porcine pericardium‐derived collagen membrane (test). Histological analysis was performed after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of healing and the amount of residual membrane evaluated. Non‐inferiority was calculated using the Brunner‐Langer mixed regression model. RESULTS: Histological analysis indicated the presence of residual membrane in both groups at all time points, with significant degradation noted in both groups at 12 weeks compared to 4 weeks (p = .017). No significant difference in ranked residual membrane scores between the control and test membranes was detected at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: The pericardium‐derived membrane was shown to be statistically non‐inferior to the control membrane with respect to resorption kinetics and barrier function when utilized for guided bone regeneration in semi‐saddle defects in minipigs. Further evaluation is necessary in the clinical setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8543466
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85434662021-10-29 Comparative barrier membrane degradation over time: Pericardium versus dermal membranes Bornert, Fabien Herber, Valentin Sandgren, Rebecca Witek, Lukasz Coelho, Paulo G. Pippenger, Benjamin E. Shahdad, Shakeel Clin Exp Dent Res Original Article OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of GBR procedures for the reconstruction of periodontal defects has been well documented. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the degradation kinetics and biocompatibility of two resorbable collagen membranes in conjunction with a bovine xenograft material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lower premolars and first molars were extracted from 18 male Yucatan minipigs. After 4 months of healing, standardized semi‐saddle defects were created (12 mm × 8 mm × 8 mm [l˙̇ × W˙ × d]), with 10 mm between adjacent defects. The defects were filled with a bovine xenograft and covered with a either the bilayer collagen membrane (control) or the porcine pericardium‐derived collagen membrane (test). Histological analysis was performed after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of healing and the amount of residual membrane evaluated. Non‐inferiority was calculated using the Brunner‐Langer mixed regression model. RESULTS: Histological analysis indicated the presence of residual membrane in both groups at all time points, with significant degradation noted in both groups at 12 weeks compared to 4 weeks (p = .017). No significant difference in ranked residual membrane scores between the control and test membranes was detected at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: The pericardium‐derived membrane was shown to be statistically non‐inferior to the control membrane with respect to resorption kinetics and barrier function when utilized for guided bone regeneration in semi‐saddle defects in minipigs. Further evaluation is necessary in the clinical setting. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8543466/ /pubmed/33949796 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.414 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Bornert, Fabien
Herber, Valentin
Sandgren, Rebecca
Witek, Lukasz
Coelho, Paulo G.
Pippenger, Benjamin E.
Shahdad, Shakeel
Comparative barrier membrane degradation over time: Pericardium versus dermal membranes
title Comparative barrier membrane degradation over time: Pericardium versus dermal membranes
title_full Comparative barrier membrane degradation over time: Pericardium versus dermal membranes
title_fullStr Comparative barrier membrane degradation over time: Pericardium versus dermal membranes
title_full_unstemmed Comparative barrier membrane degradation over time: Pericardium versus dermal membranes
title_short Comparative barrier membrane degradation over time: Pericardium versus dermal membranes
title_sort comparative barrier membrane degradation over time: pericardium versus dermal membranes
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8543466/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33949796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.414
work_keys_str_mv AT bornertfabien comparativebarriermembranedegradationovertimepericardiumversusdermalmembranes
AT herbervalentin comparativebarriermembranedegradationovertimepericardiumversusdermalmembranes
AT sandgrenrebecca comparativebarriermembranedegradationovertimepericardiumversusdermalmembranes
AT witeklukasz comparativebarriermembranedegradationovertimepericardiumversusdermalmembranes
AT coelhopaulog comparativebarriermembranedegradationovertimepericardiumversusdermalmembranes
AT pippengerbenjamine comparativebarriermembranedegradationovertimepericardiumversusdermalmembranes
AT shahdadshakeel comparativebarriermembranedegradationovertimepericardiumversusdermalmembranes