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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |