The Condensation of Collagen Leads to an Extended Standing Time and a Decreased Pro-inflammatory Tissue Response to a Newly Developed Pericardium-based Barrier Membrane for Guided Bone Regeneration.
Collagen membrane
Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR)
degradation
macrophages
pericardium
Journal
In vivo (Athens, Greece)
ISSN: 1791-7549
Titre abrégé: In Vivo
Pays: Greece
ID NLM: 8806809
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
27
01
2020
revised:
18
02
2020
accepted:
25
02
2020
entrez:
2
5
2020
pubmed:
2
5
2020
medline:
13
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A new manufacturing process has been established for the condensation of collagen derived from porcine pericardium to develop a new dental barrier membrane (CPM) that can provide a long barrier functionality. A native collagen membrane (PM) was used as control. Established in vitro procedures using L929 and MC3T3 cells were used for cytocompatibility analyses. For the in vivo study, subcutaneous implantation of both membrane types in 40 BALB/c mice and established histological, immuno histochemical and histomorphometrical methods were conducted. Both the in vitro and in vivo results revealed that the CPM has a biocompatibility profile comparable to that of the control membrane. The new CPM induced a tissue reaction including more M2-macrophages. The CPM is fully biocompatible and seems to support the early healing process. Moreover, the new biomaterial seems to prevent cell ingrowth for a longer period of time, making it ideally suited for GBR procedures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/AIM
OBJECTIVE
A new manufacturing process has been established for the condensation of collagen derived from porcine pericardium to develop a new dental barrier membrane (CPM) that can provide a long barrier functionality. A native collagen membrane (PM) was used as control.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Established in vitro procedures using L929 and MC3T3 cells were used for cytocompatibility analyses. For the in vivo study, subcutaneous implantation of both membrane types in 40 BALB/c mice and established histological, immuno histochemical and histomorphometrical methods were conducted.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Both the in vitro and in vivo results revealed that the CPM has a biocompatibility profile comparable to that of the control membrane. The new CPM induced a tissue reaction including more M2-macrophages.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The CPM is fully biocompatible and seems to support the early healing process. Moreover, the new biomaterial seems to prevent cell ingrowth for a longer period of time, making it ideally suited for GBR procedures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32354884
pii: 34/3/985
doi: 10.21873/invivo.11867
pmc: PMC7279828
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biocompatible Materials
0
Biomarkers
0
Membranes, Artificial
0
Collagen
9007-34-5
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
985-1000Informations de copyright
Copyright© 2020, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.
Références
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Dec;25(12):1403-11
pubmed: 25539007
J Dent Res. 2013 Sep;92(9):773-81
pubmed: 23842107
J Biomed Mater Res. 1980 Nov;14(6):753-64
pubmed: 6820019
Head Face Med. 2014 Mar 27;10:10
pubmed: 24670219
Int J Mol Sci. 2018 Sep 27;19(10):
pubmed: 30262765
Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Jul-Dec;4(2):150-7
pubmed: 25593863
Biomaterials. 2009 Mar;30(8):1482-91
pubmed: 19121538
Acta Cir Bras. 2010 Aug;25(4):332-6
pubmed: 20676490
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Jun;16(3):369-78
pubmed: 15877758
Lab Invest. 2000 Mar;80(3):327-33
pubmed: 10744068
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2016 Dec;104(12):2928-2935
pubmed: 27419378
J Oral Implantol. 2015 Dec;41(6):669-74
pubmed: 25686360
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 Nov-Dec;20(6):843-53
pubmed: 16392340
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Aug;19(8):760-6
pubmed: 18720556
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003 Feb;14(1):80-90
pubmed: 12562369
Bioact Mater. 2017 Jun 23;2(4):208-223
pubmed: 29744431
Biomatter. 2015;5:e1056943
pubmed: 26083163
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Jun;21(6):567-76
pubmed: 20666785
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994 Jun;5(2):92-7
pubmed: 7918914
J Oral Implantol. 2015 Dec;41(6):e238-51
pubmed: 25546240
Methods Mol Biol. 2005;293:151-66
pubmed: 16028418
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Mar;19(3):295-302
pubmed: 18190562
Braz Dent J. 2012;23(1):39-44
pubmed: 22460313
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Aug;17(4):403-9
pubmed: 16907771
J Periodontal Res. 1989 Jul;24(4):247-53
pubmed: 2528624
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Jan;21(1):50-4
pubmed: 20070747
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994 Jan-Feb;9(1):13-29
pubmed: 8150509
Implant Dent. 2001;10(1):49-58
pubmed: 11307648
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Aug;15(4):443-9
pubmed: 15248879
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Jan-Feb;27(1):146-54
pubmed: 22299091
BMC Med. 2012 Jul 26;10:81
pubmed: 22834465
Acta Biomater. 2015 Sep;23:354-363
pubmed: 26073090
J Periodontol. 2007 Oct;78(10):1943-53
pubmed: 18062116
J Periodontol. 2007 Mar;78(3):377-96
pubmed: 17335361
Tissue Eng Part A. 2008 Nov;14(11):1835-42
pubmed: 18950271
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2017 Sep;105(9):2441-2450
pubmed: 28466979
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2007 Dec 1;83(3):585-96
pubmed: 17503526
J Periodontol. 2001 Apr;72(4):512-6
pubmed: 11338304
Cytokine. 2002 Jun 21;18(6):311-9
pubmed: 12160519
Biopolymers. 2014 Aug;101(8):821-33
pubmed: 24633807
Odontology. 2008 Jul;96(1):1-11
pubmed: 18661198
Biomaterials. 1997 Apr;18(7):535-8
pubmed: 9105592
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Jan 10;20(2):
pubmed: 30634646
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 Jun 12;33(5):1089–1096
pubmed: 29894551
J Periodontol. 2001 Feb;72(2):215-29
pubmed: 11288796
Biomaterials. 1996 Apr;17(7):695-702
pubmed: 8672631
In Vivo. 2016 Jan-Feb;30(1):27-33
pubmed: 26709125
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Feb;75(2):871-5
pubmed: 204938
Biomaterials. 2006 Oct;27(30):5186-98
pubmed: 16790273
J Periodontol. 1997 Sep;68(9):857-63
pubmed: 9379330
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2017 Apr;105(4):1105-1111
pubmed: 28093892
Acta Biomater. 2012 Aug;8(8):3061-72
pubmed: 22561669
Int J Mol Sci. 2017 Apr 25;18(5):
pubmed: 28441338