Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777045
Original Article

Evaluation of Porcine Collagen Membranes Used with Guided Bone Regeneration for Critical Defects: A Histological, Histomorphometric, Immunohistochemical, and Inflammatory Profile Analysis

Edith Umasi Ramos 
1   Diagnosis and Surgery Department, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Arçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil.
2   School of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizan, Huánuco, Perú.
,
Miguel Nino Chávez Leandro
2   School of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizan, Huánuco, Perú.
,
Jesús Omar Cárdenas Criales
2   School of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizan, Huánuco, Perú.
,
Marisol Rossana Ortega Buitron
2   School of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizan, Huánuco, Perú.
,
Edgar Simón Verástegui
2   School of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizan, Huánuco, Perú.
,
Wilbert Manzanedo Carbajal
2   School of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizan, Huánuco, Perú.
,
Ronald Christian Solís Adrianzén
2   School of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizan, Huánuco, Perú.
,
Anibal Eleuterio Espinoza Grijalva
2   School of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizan, Huánuco, Perú.
,
Antonio Alberto Ballarte Baylon
2   School of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizan, Huánuco, Perú.
,
Ana Paula Farnezi Bassi 
1   Diagnosis and Surgery Department, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Arçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil.
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two porcine collagen membranes of different origin used for guided bone regeneration procedures.

Materials and Methods Resorbable collagen membrane from porcine dermis (Bio-Gide, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) and resorbable collagen membrane from porcine pericardium (Jason, Institut Straumann AG, Peter Merian-Weg, Switzerland) were evaluated; histological, histometric, immunohistochemical, and inflammatory profile analyses were performed. The study was carried out on critical defects created in the calvaria of 72 rats (Rattus norvegicus albinus, Wistar variety) divided into three groups: coagulum group (Co), porcine pericardium group (JS), and porcine collagen group (BG). The defects were filled with clot, over which the membranes were placed. The animals were euthanized 7, 15, 30, and 60 days after surgery.

Statistical Analysis The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to assess data distribution. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Bonferroni multiple comparison test were used to compare the differences across the mean values of the variables. Nonparametric tests, Mann–Whitney and Wilcoxon W, were used for the quantitative analysis of the inflammatory profile. A significance level of 5% (p < 0.05) was adopted with a confidence interval of 95%. SPSS software version 2.0 was used.

Results A total of 1,008 analyses were performed on 288 histological slides. It was noted that both types of collagen membranes used in this study were effective for the guided bone regeneration procedure, with a greater proportion and thickness of bone formation among recipients of the BG (735 points, p = 0.021). This membrane also had greater permeability (62.25). The animals in the JS group, which received the porcine pericardial membrane, showed early and accelerated bone formation from early bone tissue, milder osteopontin and osteocalcin levels, and greater inflammatory reaction (86.4).

Conclusion The collagen membrane from porcine dermis demonstrated a more orderly and physiological repair process, while the porcine pericardial membrane presented a more accelerated repair process that did not remain constant over time.

Keywords

bone regeneration - guided tissue regeneration - collagen - inflammation


Publication History

Article published online:
23 January 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Hasegawa H, Kaneko T, Kanno C. et al. Evaluation of a newly designed microperforated titanium membrane with beta-tricalcium phosphate for guided bone regeneration in dog mandibles. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34 (05) 1132-1142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sbricoli L, Guazzo R, Annunziata M, Gobbato L, Bressan E, Nastri L. Selection of collagen membranes for bone regeneration: a literature review. Materials (Basel) 2020; 13 (03) 1-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Calciolari E, Ravanetti F, Strange A. et al. Degradation pattern of a porcine collagen membrane in an in vivo model of guided bone regeneration. J Periodontal Res 2018; 53 (03) 430-439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Fienitz T. et al. Biocompatibility and biodegradation of a native porcine pericardium membrane: results of in vitro and in vivo examinations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27 (01) 146-154
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Maurer T, Stoffel MH, Belyaev Y. et al. Structural characterization of four different naturally occurring porcine collagen membranes suitable for medical applications. PLoS One 2018; 13 (10) e0205027
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Salamanca E, Hsu CC, Yao WL. et al. Porcine collagen-bone composite induced osteoblast differentiation and bone regeneration in vitro and in vivo. Polymers (Basel) 2020; 12 (01) 93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Patino MG, Neiders ME, Andreana S, Noble B, Cohen RE. Cellular inflammatory response to porcine collagen membranes. J Periodontal Res 2003; 38 (05) 458-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jung S, Oh HK, Kim MS, Lee KY, Park H, Kook MS. Effect of gellan gum/tuna skin film in guided bone regeneration in artificial bone defect in rabbit calvaria. Materials (Basel) 2020; 13 (06) 1-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Azab E, Youssef AR. Biocompatibility evaluation of human and porcine acellular dermal matrix on human primary gingival fibroblasts: in vitro comparative study. Eur J Dent 2021; 15 (03) 563-567
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mish CE, Suzuki JB. Exodontia, Enxerto de alvéolo e regenração óssea com membrana. Impl Dent Contemp 2011; 37: 881-901
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Schlegel AK, Möhler H, Busch F, Mehl A. Preclinical and clinical studies of a collagen membrane (Bio-Gide). Biomaterials 1997; 18 (07) 535-538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Buser D. 20 Years of Guided Bone Regeneration in Implant Dentistry. Chicago, IL: Quintessence; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Ramires GAD, Helena JT, Oliveira JCS, Faverani LP, Bassi APF. Evaluation of guided bone regeneration in critical defects using bovine and porcine collagen membranes: histomorphometric and immunohistochemical analyses. Int J Biomater 2021; 2021: 8828194
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Grau M, Seiler C, Roland L. et al. Osteointegration of porous poly-ε-caprolactone-coated and previtalised magnesium implants in critically sized calvarial bone defects in the mouse model. Materials (Basel) 2017; 11 (01) 6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Furlaneto FAC, Nagata MJH, Fucini SE, Deliberador TM, Okamoto T, Messora MR. Bone healing in critical-size defects treated with bioactive glass/calcium sulfate: a histologic and histometric study in rat calvaria. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18 (03) 311-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Andrade TAM, Iyer A, Das PK. et al. The inflammatory stimulus of a natural latex biomembrane improves healing in mice. Braz J Med Biol Res 2011; 44 (10) 1036-1047
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Brizeno LAC, Assreuy AMS, Alves APNN. et al. Delayed healing of oral mucosa in a diabetic rat model: implication of TNF-α, IL-1β and FGF-2. Life Sci 2016; 155: 36-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Wang J, Qu Y, Chen C. et al. Fabrication of collagen membranes with different intrafibrillar mineralization degree as a potential use for GBR. Mater Sci Eng C 2019; 104: 109959
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Susanto A, Satari MH, Abbas B, Koesoemowidodo RSA, Cahyanto A. Fabrication and characterization of chitosan-collagen membrane from Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) scales for guided tissue regeneration. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (03) 370-375
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Imbronito AV, Arana Chavez VE, Todescan JH. Regeneração óssea guida. Periodontia Rev 2001; 10 (02) 45-50
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Ortolani E, Quadrini F, Bellisario D, Santo L, Polimeni A, Santarsiero A. Mechanical qualification of collagen membranes used in dentistry. Ann Ist Super Sanita 2015; 51 (03) 229-235
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ghanaati S. Non-cross-linked porcine-based collagen I-III membranes do not require high vascularization rates for their integration within the implantation bed: a paradigm shift. Acta Biomater 2012; 8 (08) 3061-3072
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Okamoto T, de Russo MC. Wound healing following tooth extraction. Histochemical study in rats. Rev Fac Odontol Aracatuba 1973; 2 (02) 153-169
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Misch CE. Bone classification, training keys to implant success. Dent Today 1989; 8 (04) 39-44
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Linawati L, Sitam S, Mulyawan W. et al. Effect of intermittent hypobaric hypoxia exposure onHIF-1α, VEGF, and angiogenesis in the healing process of post-tooth extraction sockets in rats. Eur J Dent 2023; DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768639.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hassumi JS, Mulinari-Santos G, Fabris ALDS. et al. Alveolar bone healing in rats: micro-CT, immunohistochemical and molecular analysis. J Appl Oral Sci 2018; 26: e20170326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Merli M, Moscatelli M, Mariotti G, Pagliaro U, Raffaelli E, Nieri M. Comparing membranes and bone substitutes in a one-stage procedure for horizontal bone augmentation. A double-blind randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2015; 8 (03) 271-281
    PubMedGoogle Scholar