Cargando…
In Vivo Evaluation of Permeable and Impermeable Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration
Background: The degree of biodegradation and the inflammatory response of membranes employed for guided bone regeneration directly impact the outcome of this technique. This study aimed to evaluate four different experimental versions of Poly (L-lactate-co-Trimethylene Carbonate) (PTMC) + Poly (L-la...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9324035/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35877914 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes12070711 |
_version_ | 1784756708363468800 |
---|---|
author | Sartoretto, Suelen Cristina Gens, Natalia de Freitas de Brito Resende, Rodrigo Figueiredo Alves, Adriana Terezinha Neves Novellino Cecato, Rafael Cury Uzeda, Marcelo José Granjeiro, Jose Mauro Calasans-Maia, Monica Diuana Calasans-Maia, Jose Albuquerque |
author_facet | Sartoretto, Suelen Cristina Gens, Natalia de Freitas de Brito Resende, Rodrigo Figueiredo Alves, Adriana Terezinha Neves Novellino Cecato, Rafael Cury Uzeda, Marcelo José Granjeiro, Jose Mauro Calasans-Maia, Monica Diuana Calasans-Maia, Jose Albuquerque |
author_sort | Sartoretto, Suelen Cristina |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: The degree of biodegradation and the inflammatory response of membranes employed for guided bone regeneration directly impact the outcome of this technique. This study aimed to evaluate four different experimental versions of Poly (L-lactate-co-Trimethylene Carbonate) (PTMC) + Poly (L-lactate-co-glycolate) (PLGA) membranes, implanted in mouse subcutaneous tissue, compared to a commercially available membrane and a Sham group. Methods: Sixty Balb-C mice were randomly divided into six experimental groups and subdivided into 1, 3, 6 and 12 weeks (n = 5 groups/period). The membranes (1 cm(2)) were implanted in the subcutaneous back tissue of the animals. The samples were obtained for descriptive and semiquantitative histological evaluation (ISO 10993-6). Results: G1 and G4 allowed tissue adhesion and the permeation of inflammatory cells over time and showed greater phagocytic activity and permeability. G2 and G3 detached from the tissue in one and three weeks; however, in the more extended periods, they presented a rectilinear and homogeneous aspect and were not absorbed. G2 had a major inflammatory reaction. G5 was almost completely absorbed after 12 weeks. Conclusions: The membranes are considered biocompatible. G5 showed a higher degree of biosorption, followed by G1 and G4. G2 and G3 are considered non-absorbable in the studied periods. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9324035 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93240352022-07-27 In Vivo Evaluation of Permeable and Impermeable Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration Sartoretto, Suelen Cristina Gens, Natalia de Freitas de Brito Resende, Rodrigo Figueiredo Alves, Adriana Terezinha Neves Novellino Cecato, Rafael Cury Uzeda, Marcelo José Granjeiro, Jose Mauro Calasans-Maia, Monica Diuana Calasans-Maia, Jose Albuquerque Membranes (Basel) Article Background: The degree of biodegradation and the inflammatory response of membranes employed for guided bone regeneration directly impact the outcome of this technique. This study aimed to evaluate four different experimental versions of Poly (L-lactate-co-Trimethylene Carbonate) (PTMC) + Poly (L-lactate-co-glycolate) (PLGA) membranes, implanted in mouse subcutaneous tissue, compared to a commercially available membrane and a Sham group. Methods: Sixty Balb-C mice were randomly divided into six experimental groups and subdivided into 1, 3, 6 and 12 weeks (n = 5 groups/period). The membranes (1 cm(2)) were implanted in the subcutaneous back tissue of the animals. The samples were obtained for descriptive and semiquantitative histological evaluation (ISO 10993-6). Results: G1 and G4 allowed tissue adhesion and the permeation of inflammatory cells over time and showed greater phagocytic activity and permeability. G2 and G3 detached from the tissue in one and three weeks; however, in the more extended periods, they presented a rectilinear and homogeneous aspect and were not absorbed. G2 had a major inflammatory reaction. G5 was almost completely absorbed after 12 weeks. Conclusions: The membranes are considered biocompatible. G5 showed a higher degree of biosorption, followed by G1 and G4. G2 and G3 are considered non-absorbable in the studied periods. MDPI 2022-07-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9324035/ /pubmed/35877914 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes12070711 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Sartoretto, Suelen Cristina Gens, Natalia de Freitas de Brito Resende, Rodrigo Figueiredo Alves, Adriana Terezinha Neves Novellino Cecato, Rafael Cury Uzeda, Marcelo José Granjeiro, Jose Mauro Calasans-Maia, Monica Diuana Calasans-Maia, Jose Albuquerque In Vivo Evaluation of Permeable and Impermeable Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration |
title | In Vivo Evaluation of Permeable and Impermeable Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration |
title_full | In Vivo Evaluation of Permeable and Impermeable Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration |
title_fullStr | In Vivo Evaluation of Permeable and Impermeable Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration |
title_full_unstemmed | In Vivo Evaluation of Permeable and Impermeable Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration |
title_short | In Vivo Evaluation of Permeable and Impermeable Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration |
title_sort | in vivo evaluation of permeable and impermeable membranes for guided bone regeneration |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9324035/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35877914 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes12070711 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sartorettosuelencristina invivoevaluationofpermeableandimpermeablemembranesforguidedboneregeneration AT gensnataliadefreitas invivoevaluationofpermeableandimpermeablemembranesforguidedboneregeneration AT debritoresenderodrigofigueiredo invivoevaluationofpermeableandimpermeablemembranesforguidedboneregeneration AT alvesadrianaterezinhanevesnovellino invivoevaluationofpermeableandimpermeablemembranesforguidedboneregeneration AT cecatorafaelcury invivoevaluationofpermeableandimpermeablemembranesforguidedboneregeneration AT uzedamarcelojose invivoevaluationofpermeableandimpermeablemembranesforguidedboneregeneration AT granjeirojosemauro invivoevaluationofpermeableandimpermeablemembranesforguidedboneregeneration AT calasansmaiamonicadiuana invivoevaluationofpermeableandimpermeablemembranesforguidedboneregeneration AT calasansmaiajosealbuquerque invivoevaluationofpermeableandimpermeablemembranesforguidedboneregeneration |