Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(03): 563-567
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1727551
Original Article

Biocompatibility Evaluation of Human and Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix on Human Primary Gingival Fibroblasts: In Vitro Comparative Study

Ehab Azab
1   Department of Basic and Clinical Oral Sciences, Division of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia
,
Abdel-Rahman Youssef
2   Department of Basic and Clinical Oral Sciences, Division of Basic Medical Science, Faculty of Dentistry, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia
3   Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Allogeneic and xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix (ADM) grafts have been used to treat periodontal soft tissue defects. The purpose of the current study was to compare the effect of human ADM (AlloDerm) and porcine ADM (Derma) on human primary gingival fibroblasts in vitro regarding the biocompatibility test.

Materials and Methods Gingival fibroblasts were obtained from healthy adult gingiva and seeded on AlloDerm or Derma ADM in 96-well plate. The control cells were grown on a surface-treated polystyrene cell-culture plate without matrix. The cells were cultured for 3, 7, and 14 days. The fibroblasts morphology was examined using inverted microscopy, and the cell viability of fibroblasts adherent to the dermal matrix was evaluated using 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) cell viability assay after 3, 7, and 14 days in culture. The data were statistically evaluated by one-way analysis of variance. p-Value of 0.05 was considered significant.

Results Gingival fibroblasts adjacent to the AlloDerm and Derma matrices were healthy, attached to the well, and did not exhibit any cytopathic changes similar to control. There were no statistically significant differences in the cell viability between the gingival fibroblasts attached to Derma and AlloDerm on day 3 (p = 0.841), day 7 (p = 0.198), and day 14 (p = 0.788).

Conclusion Considering this in vitro study’s limitations, both human and porcine ADM were compatible with the surrounding human primary gingival fibroblasts. No significant differences were observed in the cell viability between the gingival fibroblasts that were attached to Derma and AlloDerm.

Keywords

human and porcine acellular dermal matrix - gingival fibroblasts - cell viability


Publication History

Article published online:
18 June 2021

© 2021. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Lang NP, Löe H. The relationship between the width of keratinized gingiva and gingival health. J Periodontol 1972; 43 (10) 623-627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wennström J, Lindhe J. Role of attached gingiva for maintenance of periodontal health. Healing following excisional and grafting procedures in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1983; 10 (02) 206-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kennedy JE, Bird WC, Palcanis KG, Dorfman HS. A longitudinal evaluation of varying widths of attached gingiva. J Clin Periodontol 1985; 12 (08) 667-675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Pradeep K, Rajababu P, Satyanarayana D, Sagar V. Gingival recession: review and strategies in treatment of recession. Case Rep Dent 2012; 2012: 563421
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Thoma DS, Benić GI, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CH, Jung RE. A systematic review assessing soft tissue augmentation techniques. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20 (Suppl. 04) 146-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Chambrone L, Sukekava F, Araújo MG, Pustiglioni FE, Chambrone LA, Lima LA. Root-coverage procedures for the treatment of localized recession-type defects: a Cochrane systematic review. J Periodontol 2010; 81 (04) 452-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Barros RR, Novaes AB, Grisi MF, Souza SL, Taba MJ, Palioto DB. A 6-month comparative clinical study of a conventional and a new surgical approach for root coverage with acellular dermal matrix. J Periodontol 2004; 75 (10) 1350-1356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Wainwright DJ. Use of an acellular allograft dermal matrix (AlloDerm) in the management of full-thickness burns. Burns 1995; 21 (04) 243-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wong AK, Schonmeyer BH, Singh P, Carlson DL, Li S, Mehrara BJ. Histologic analysis of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in acellular human dermis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121 (04) 1144-1152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wei P-C, Laurell L, Lingen MW, Geivelis M. Acellular dermal matrix allografts to achieve increased attached gingiva. Part 2. A histological comparative study. J Periodontol 2002; 73 (03) 257-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kroiss S, Rathe F, Sader R, Weigl P, Schlee M. Acellular dermal matrix allograft versus autogenous connective tissue grafts for thickening soft tissue and covering multiple gingival recessions: a 5-year preference clinical study. Quintessence Int 2019; 50 (04) 278-285
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Muthuraj TS, Bagchi S, Bandyopadhyay P, Mallick S, Ghosh P, Renganath MJ. A randomized split mouth clinical study to compare the clinical outcomes of subepithelial connective graft and acellular dermal matrix in Miller’s Class I recession coverage therapy. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2020; 24 (04) 342-347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Balaji VR, Ramakrishnan T, Manikandan D. et al. Management of gingival recession with acellular dermal matrix graft: a clinical study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2016; 8 (Suppl. 01) S59-S64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Novaes Jr AB, Grisi DC, Molina GO, Souza SL, Taba Jr M, Grisi MF. Comparative 6-month clinical study of a subepithelial connective tissue graft and acellular dermal matrix graft for the treatment of gingival recession. J Periodontol 2001; 72 (11) 1477-1484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wei PC, Laurell L, Geivelis M, Lingen MW, Maddalozzo D. Acellular dermal matrix allografts to achieve increased attached gingiva. Part 1. A clinical study. J Periodontol 2000; 71 (08) 1297-1305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Novaes Jr AB, Pontes CC, Souza SL, Grisi MF, Taba Jr M. The use of acellular dermal matrix allograft for the elimination of gingival melanin pigmentation: case presentation with 2 years of follow-up. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2002; 14 (08) 619-623
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Novaes Jr AB, Souza SL. Acellular dermal matrix graft as a membrane for guided bone regeneration: a case report. Implant Dent 2001; 10 (03) 192-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Moslemi N, Mousavi M Jazi, Haghighati F, Morovati SP, Jamali R. Acellular dermal matrix allograft versus subepithelial connective tissue graft in treatment of gingival recessions: a 5-year randomized clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 2011; 38 (12) 1122-1129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fickl S, Nannmark U, Schlagenhauf U, Hürzeler MB, Kebschull M. Porcine dermal matrix in the treatment of dehiscence-type defects–an experimental split-mouth animal trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (07) 799-805
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Fickl S, Jockel-Schneider Y, Lincke T, Bechtold M, Fischer KR, Schlagenhauf U. Porcine dermal matrix for covering of recession type defects: a case series. Quintessence Int 2013; 44 (03) 243-246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Verardi S, Orsini M, Lombardi T. et al. Comparison between two different techniques for peri-implant soft tissue augmentation: porcine dermal matrix graft versus tenting screw. J Periodontol 2019; DOI: 10.1002/JPER.19-0447.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Erdag G, Sheridan RL. Fibroblasts improve performance of cultured composite skin substitutes on athymic mice. Burns 2004; 30 (04) 322-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Naughton G, Mansbridge J, Gentzkow G. A metabolically active human dermal replacement for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Artif Organs 1997; 21 (11) 1203-1210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Rodrigues AZ, Oliveira PT, Novaes Jr AB, Maia LP, Souza SL, Palioto DB. Evaluation of in vitro human gingival fibroblast seeding on acellular dermal matrix. Braz Dent J 2010; 21 (03) 179-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lima RS, Peruzzo DC, Napimoga MH, Saba-Chujfi E, Dos Santos-Pereira SA, Martinez EF. Evaluation of the biological behavior of Mucograft® in human gingival fibroblasts: an in vitro study. Braz Dent J 2015; 26 (06) 602-606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pabst AM, Happe A, Callaway A. et al. In vitro and in vivo characterization of porcine acellular dermal matrix for gingival augmentation procedures. J Periodontal Res 2014; 49 (03) 371-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mudalal M, Sun X, Li X, Zhou Y. The evaluation of leukocyte-platelet rich fibrin as an anti-inflammatory autologous biological additive. A novel in vitro study. Saudi Med J 2019; 40 (07) 657-668
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Mosmann T. Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods 1983; 65 (1-2) 55-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Carmichael J, DeGraff WG, Gazdar AF, Minna JD, Mitchell JB. Evaluation of a tetrazolium-based semiautomated colorimetric assay: assessment of chemosensitivity testing. Cancer Res 1987; 47 (04) 936-942
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Fu RH, Wang YC, Liu SP. et al. Decellularization and recellularization technologies in tissue engineering. Cell Transplant 2014; 23 (04/05) 621-630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Fu JH, Su CY, Wang HL. Esthetic soft tissue management for teeth and implants. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2012; 12 (Suppl. 03) 129-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Schmitt CM, Moest T, Lutz R, Wehrhan F, Neukam FW, Schlegel KA. Long-term outcomes after vestibuloplasty with a porcine collagen matrix (Mucograft®) versus the free gingival graft: a comparative prospective clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27 (11) e125-e133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ge L, Zheng S, Wei H. Comparison of histological structure and biocompatibility between human acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and porcine ADM. Burns 2009; 35 (01) 46-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Armour AD, Fish JS, Woodhouse KA, Semple JL. A comparison of human and porcine acellularized dermis: interactions with human fibroblasts in vitro. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117 (03) 845-856
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Campbell KT, Burns NK, Rios CN, Mathur AB, Butler CE. Human versus non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrix used for ventral hernia repair: comparison of in vivo fibrovascular remodeling and mechanical repair strength. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (06) 2321-2332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Ngo MD, Aberman HM, Hawes ML, Choi B, Gertzman AA. Evaluation of human acellular dermis versus porcine acellular dermis in an in vivo model for incisional hernia repair. Cell Tissue Bank 2011; 12 (02) 135-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Harris RJ. A comparative study of root coverage obtained with an acellular dermal matrix versus a connective tissue graft: results of 107 recession defects in 50 consecutively treated patients. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000; 20 (01) 51-59
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Tal H, Moses O, Zohar R, Meir H, Nemcovsky C. Root coverage of advanced gingival recession: a comparative study between acellular dermal matrix allograft and subepithelial connective tissue grafts. J Periodontol 2002; 73 (12) 1405-1411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 McGuire MK, Scheyer ET. Xenogeneic collagen matrix with coronally advanced flap compared to connective tissue with coronally advanced flap for the treatment of dehiscence-type recession defects. J Periodontol 2010; 81 (08) 1108-1117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Cardaropoli D, Tamagnone L, Roffredo A, Gaveglio L. Treatment of gingival recession defects using coronally advanced flap with a porcine collagen matrix compared to coronally advanced flap with connective tissue graft: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Periodontol 2012; 83 (03) 321-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Jepsen K, Jepsen S, Zucchelli G. et al. Treatment of gingival recession defects with a coronally advanced flap and a xenogeneic collagen matrix: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2013; 40 (01) 82-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Lorenzo R, García V, Orsini M, Martin C, Sanz M. Clinical efficacy of a xenogeneic collagen matrix in augmenting keratinized mucosa around implants: a randomized controlled prospective clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (03) 316-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 de Souza SL, Novaes Jr AB, Grisi DC, Taba Jr M, Grisi MF de, de Andrade PF. Comparative clinical study of a subepithelial connective tissue graft and acellular dermal matrix graft for the treatment of gingival recessions: six- to 12-month changes. J Int Acad Periodontol 2008; 10 (03) 87-94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar