Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2019; 13(03): 295-302
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1693751
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Synthesis and Characterizations of a Collagen-Rich Biomembrane with Potential for Tissue-Guided Regeneration

Marcos J. Silva
1   Universidade Anhanguera de São Paulo–UNIAN, Osasco, SP, Brazil
2   Universidade de Araraquara, Núcleo de Pesquisa em Biotecnologia, Centro, Araraquara, SP, Brazil
3   Biotechnology and Innovation in Health Program, Universidade Anhanguera de São Paulo (UNIAN/SP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Carolina P. Gonçalves
1   Universidade Anhanguera de São Paulo–UNIAN, Osasco, SP, Brazil
,
Kleber M. Galvão
1   Universidade Anhanguera de São Paulo–UNIAN, Osasco, SP, Brazil
,
Paulo H. P. D’Alpino
3   Biotechnology and Innovation in Health Program, Universidade Anhanguera de São Paulo (UNIAN/SP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Fábio D. Nascimento
4   Universidade de Mogi das Cruzes, Centro de Ciências Biomédicas, Mogi das Cruzes, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
02 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives In this study, a collagen-rich biomembrane obtained from porcine ­intestinal submucosa for application in guided bone regeneration was developed and characterized. Then, its biological and mechanical properties were compared with that of commercial products (GenDerm [Baumer], Lumina-Coat [Critéria], Surgitime PTFE [Bionnovation], and Surgidry Dental F [Technodry]).

Materials and Methods The biomembrane was extracted from porcine intestinal submucosa. Scanning electron microscopy, spectroscopic dispersive energy, glycosaminoglycan quantification, and confocal microscopy by intrinsic fluorescence were used to evaluate the collagen structural patterns of the biomembrane. Mechanical tensile and deformation tests were also performed.

Statistical Analysis  The results of the methods used for experimental membrane characterizations were compared with that obtained by the commercial membranes and statistically analyzed (significance of 5%).

Results The collagen-rich biomembrane developed also exhibited a more organized, less porous collagen fibril network, with the presence of glycosaminoglycans. The experimental biomembrane exhibited mechanical properties, tensile strength, and deformation behavior with improved average stress/strain when compared with other commercial membranes tested. Benefits also include a structured, flexible, and ­bioresorbable characteristics scaffold.

Conclusions The experimental collagen-rich membrane developed presents physical–chemical, molecular, and mechanical characteristics similar to or better than that of the commercial products tested, possibly allowing it to actively participating in the process of bone neoformation.

Keywords

extracellular matrix - porcine intestinal submucosa - guided bone regeneration
 

  • References

  • 1 Andrée B, Bär A, Haverich A, Hilfiker A. Small intestinal ­submucosa segments as matrix for tissue engineering: review. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2013; 19 (04) 279-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Khurshid Z, Husain S, Alotaibi H. et al. Chapter 18 - Novel Techniques of Scaffold Fabrication for Bioactive Glasses. In: Kaur G. ed. Biomedical, Therapeutic and Clinical Applications of ­Bioactive Glasses. Woodhead Publishing; 2019: 497-519
    Google Scholar
  • 3 O’Brien FJ. Biomaterials & scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Today 2011; 14: 88-95
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Park KM, Shin YM, Kim K, Shin H. Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine 2017: a year in review. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2018; 24 (05) 327-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Zafar MS, Khurshid Z, Almas K. Oral tissue engineering progress and challenges. Tissue Eng Regen Med 2015; 12: 387-397
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Stock UA, Vacanti JP. Tissue engineering: current state and prospects. Annu Rev Med 2001; 52: 443-451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Inanç B, Arslan YE, Seker S, Elçin AE, Elçin YM. Periodontal ligament cellular structures engineered with electrospun poly(DL-lactide-co-glycolide) nanofibrous membrane ­scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A 2009; 90 (01) 186-195
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cho WJ, Kim JH, Oh SH, Nam HH, Kim JM, Lee JH. Hydrophilized polycaprolactone nanofiber mesh-embedded poly(glycolic-co-lactic acid) membrane for effective guided bone regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res A 2009; 91 (02) 400-407
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Park JK, Yeom J, Oh EJ. et al. Guided bone regeneration by poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) grafted hyaluronic acid bi-layer films for periodontal barrier applications. Acta Biomater 2009; 5 (09) 3394-3403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 de Santana RB, de Mattos CM, Francischone CE, Van Dyke T. Superficial topography and porosity of an absorbable barrier membrane impacts soft tissue response in guided bone regeneration. J Periodontol 2010; 81 (06) 926-933
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hutmacher DW. Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and ­cartilage. Biomaterials 2000; 21 (24) 2529-2543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ahadian S, Khademhosseini A. Smart scaffolds in tissue regeneration. Regen Biomater 2018; 5 (03) 125-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sheikh Z, Najeeb S, Khurshid Z, Verma V, Rashid H, Glogauer M. Biodegradable materials for bone repair and tissue engineering applications. Materials (Basel) 2015; 8 (09) 5744-5794
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Badylak SF, Tullius R, Kokini K. et al. The use of xenogeneic small intestinal submucosa as a biomaterial for Achilles tendon repair in a dog model. J Biomed Mater Res 1995; 29 (08) 977-985
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hodde JP, Badylak SF, Brightman AO, Voytik-Harbin SL. ­Glycosaminoglycan content of small intestinal submucosa: a bioscaffold for tissue replacement. Tissue Eng 1996; 2 (03) 209-217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gilbert TW, Sacks MS, Grashow JS, Woo SL, Badylak SF, Chancellor MB. Fiber kinematics of small intestinal submucosa under biaxial and uniaxial stretch. J Biomech Eng 2006; 128 (06) 890-898
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Brown B, Lindberg K, Reing J, Stolz DB, Badylak SF. The basement membrane component of biologic scaffolds derived from extracellular matrix. Tissue Eng 2006; 12 (03) 519-526
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hodde J, Record R, Tullius R, Badylak S. Fibronectin peptides mediate HMEC adhesion to porcine-derived extracellular matrix. Biomaterials 2002; 23 (08) 1841-1848
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Badylak SF, Freytes DO, Gilbert TW. Extracellular matrix as a biological scaffold material: structure and function. Acta Biomater 2009; 5 (01) 1-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 McDevitt CA, Wildey GM, Cutrone RM. Transforming growth factor-beta1 in a sterilized tissue derived from the pig small intestine submucosa. J Biomed Mater Res A 2003; 67 (02) 637-640
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Voytik-Harbin SL, Brightman AO, Kraine MR, Waisner B, Badylak SF. Identification of extractable growth factors from small intestinal submucosa. J Cell Biochem 1997; 67 (04) 478-491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hodde JP, Ernst DM, Hiles MC. An investigation of the long-term bioactivity of endogenous growth factor in OASIS Wound Matrix. J Wound Care 2005; 14 (01) 23-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hodde JP, Record RD, Liang HA, Badylak SF. Vascular endothelial growth factor in porcine-derived extracellular matrix. Endothelium 2001; 8 (01) 11-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Nader HB, Ferreira TM, Paiva JF. et al. Isolation and structural studies of heparan sulfates and chondroitin sulfates from three species of molluscs. J Biol Chem 1984; 259 (03) 1431-1435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Dietrich CP, Dietrich SM. Electrophoretic behaviour of ­acidic mucopolysaccharides in diamine buffers. Anal Biochem 1976; 70 (02) 645-647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gottlow J. Guided tissue regeneration using bioresorbable and non-resorbable devices: initial healing and long-term results. J Periodontol 1993; 64: 1157-1165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Bunyaratavej P, Wang HL. Collagen membranes: a review. J Periodontol 2001; 72 (02) 215-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Zellin G, Gritli-Linde A, Linde A. Healing of mandibular defects with different biodegradable and non-biodegradable membranes: an experimental study in rats. Biomaterials 1995; 16 (08) 601-609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kasaj A, Reichert C, Götz H, Röhrig B, Smeets R, Willershausen B. In vitro evaluation of various bioabsorbable and ­nonresorbable barrier membranes for guided tissue regeneration. Head Face Med 2008; 4: 22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Takata T, Wang HL, Miyauchi M. Migration of osteoblastic cells on various guided bone regeneration membranes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12 (04) 332-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Scantlebury TV. 1982–1992: a decade of technology ­development for guided tissue regeneration. J Periodontol 1993; 64: 1129-1137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Morgado DL, Rodrigues BVM, Almeida EVR, Seoud OAE, Frollini E. Bio-based films from linter cellulose and its acetates: formation and properties. Materials (Basel) 2013; 6 (06) 2410-2435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ishigaki T, Kubo K. Effects of eccentric training with different training frequencies on blood circulation, collagen fiber orientation, and mechanical properties of human Achilles tendons in vivo. Eur. J Appl Physiol 2018; 118 (12) 2617-2626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Boerckel JD, Uhrig BA, Willett NJ, Huebsch N, Guldberg RE. Mechanical regulation of vascular growth and tissue regeneration in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011; 108 (37) E674-E680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Marras WS, Walter BA, Purmessur D, Mageswaran P, Wiet MG. The contribution of biomechanical-biological interactions of the spine to low back pain. Hum Factors 2016; 58 (07) 965-975
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Abebe W, Pashley DH, Rueggeberg FA. Vasorelaxant effect of resin-based, single-bottle dentin bonding systems. J Endod 2005; 31 (03) 194-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar