Cytocompatibility of Bone Substitute Materials and Membranes.
Bone substitute materials
biocompatibility
cytocompatibility
guided bone regeneration
guided tissue regeneration
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:
11
03
2021
revised:
20
04
2021
accepted:
21
04
2021
entrez:
28
6
2021
pubmed:
29
6
2021
medline:
1
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
With the demographic change and associated chronic bone loss, the need for cytocompatible bone replacement materials arise in modern medicine. The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the cytocompatibility of eleven different bone substitute materials and membranes. Seven bone substitute materials and four membranes were assessed in vitro. The specimens were tested based on their interaction with MC3T3 pre-osteoblasts, through the utilization of viability, proliferation, and cytotoxicity assays. Cell vitality was evaluated using live-dead staining. Although we found minor differences in cytocompatibility among the assessed materials, all tested materials can be considered as cytocompatible with a viability of more than 70% of the negative control, which indicates the non-toxic range as defined in current, international standards (DIN EN ISO 10993-5:2009, German Institute for Standardization, Berlin, Germany). Direct live-dead staining assays confirmed satisfactory cytocompatibility of all tested membranes. All examined bone substitute materials and membranes were found to be cytocompatible. In order to assess whether the observed minor differences can impact regenerative processes, further in vivo studies need to be conducted.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/AIM
OBJECTIVE
With the demographic change and associated chronic bone loss, the need for cytocompatible bone replacement materials arise in modern medicine. The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the cytocompatibility of eleven different bone substitute materials and membranes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Seven bone substitute materials and four membranes were assessed in vitro. The specimens were tested based on their interaction with MC3T3 pre-osteoblasts, through the utilization of viability, proliferation, and cytotoxicity assays. Cell vitality was evaluated using live-dead staining.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Although we found minor differences in cytocompatibility among the assessed materials, all tested materials can be considered as cytocompatible with a viability of more than 70% of the negative control, which indicates the non-toxic range as defined in current, international standards (DIN EN ISO 10993-5:2009, German Institute for Standardization, Berlin, Germany). Direct live-dead staining assays confirmed satisfactory cytocompatibility of all tested membranes.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
All examined bone substitute materials and membranes were found to be cytocompatible. In order to assess whether the observed minor differences can impact regenerative processes, further in vivo studies need to be conducted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34182478
pii: 35/4/2035
doi: 10.21873/invivo.12472
pmc: PMC8286533
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biocompatible Materials
0
Bone Substitutes
0
Membranes, Artificial
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2035-2040Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.
Références
Materials (Basel). 2015 Apr 15;8(4):1778-1816
pubmed: 28788032
Materials (Basel). 2018 Jan 30;11(2):
pubmed: 29385747
J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;58(1):36-41
pubmed: 11152995
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Dec;40(8):706-18
pubmed: 22297272
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2009 Nov;91(2):557-66
pubmed: 18985779
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Feb;38(2):166-72
pubmed: 19121923
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2007 May 01;12(3):E258-66
pubmed: 17468726
Acta Biomater. 2015 Sep;23:354-363
pubmed: 26073090
Biomaterials. 2013 Dec;34(38):9960-8
pubmed: 24075478
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Mar;105(3):e9-14
pubmed: 18280955
In Vivo. 2020 May-Jun;34(3):1053-1061
pubmed: 32354892
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014 Sep;102(9):3140-53
pubmed: 24133006
Cell Biol Toxicol. 2008 Aug;24(4):315-9
pubmed: 17932777
Acta Orthop. 2007 Feb;78(1):19-25
pubmed: 17453388