Properties of three collagen scaffolds in comparison with native connective tissue: an in-vitro study.
Acellular dermal matrix
Artificial saliva
Collagen matrix
Connective tissue graft
Resorption rate
Scanning electron microscope (SEM)
Simulated body fluid
Journal
International journal of implant dentistry
ISSN: 2198-4034
Titre abrégé: Int J Implant Dent
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101676532
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 10 2023
11 10 2023
Historique:
received:
31
05
2023
accepted:
04
10
2023
medline:
13
10
2023
pubmed:
11
10
2023
entrez:
11
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate collagen scaffolds (CS) in terms of their in vitro resorption behavior, surface structure, swelling behavior, and mechanical properties in physiologically simulated environments, compared with porcine native connective tissue. Three test materials-one porcine collagen matrix (p-CM), two acellular dermal matrices (porcine = p-ADM, allogenic = a-ADM)-and porcine native connective tissue (p-CTG) as a control material were examined for resorption in four solutions using a high-precision scale. The solutions were artificial saliva (AS) and simulated body fluid (SBF), both with and without collagenase (0.5 U/ml at 37 °C). In addition, the surface structures of CS were analyzed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) before and after exposure to AS or SBF. The swelling behavior of CS was evaluated by measuring volume change and liquid absorption capacity in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Finally, the mechanical properties of CS and p-CTG were investigated using cyclic compression testing in PBS. Solutions containing collagenase demonstrated high resorption rates with significant differences (p < 0.04) between the tested materials after 4 h, 8 h and 24 h, ranging from 54.1 to 100% after 24 h. SEM images revealed cross-linked collagen structures in all untreated specimens. Unlike a-ADM, the scaffolds of p-CM and p-ADM displayed a flake-like structure. The swelling ratio and fluid absorption capacity per area ranged from 13.4 to 25.5% among the test materials and showed following pattern: p-CM > a-ADM > p-ADM. P-CM exhibited higher elastic properties than p-ADM, whereas a-ADM, like p-CTG, were barely compressible and lost structural integrity under increasing pressure. Collagen scaffolds vary significantly in their physical properties, such as resorption and swelling behavior and elastic properties, depending on their microstructure and composition. When clinically applied, these differences should be taken into consideration to achieve the desired outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37819469
doi: 10.1186/s40729-023-00504-z
pii: 10.1186/s40729-023-00504-z
pmc: PMC10567619
doi:
Substances chimiques
Collagen
9007-34-5
Collagenases
EC 3.4.24.-
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
36Informations de copyright
© 2023. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Implantologie im Zahn‐, Mund‐ und Kieferbereich e.V., Japanese Society of Oral Implantology.
Références
Materials (Basel). 2020 Feb 09;13(3):
pubmed: 32050433
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009 Mar;107(3):e24-8
pubmed: 19217009
Materials (Basel). 2019 Nov 11;12(22):
pubmed: 31718004
Head Face Med. 2014 Mar 27;10:10
pubmed: 24670219
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Jul;29(7):716-724
pubmed: 29855100
J Clin Periodontol. 2021 Oct;48(10):1293-1301
pubmed: 34219259
Periodontol 2000. 2022 Feb;88(1):116-129
pubmed: 35103320
Dtsch Zahnarztl Z. 1982 Oct;37(10):836-40
pubmed: 6958450
Polymers (Basel). 2021 Aug 07;13(16):
pubmed: 34451173
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 Oct;32 Suppl 21:108-137
pubmed: 34642978
Int J Implant Dent. 2022 Mar 4;8(1):9
pubmed: 35243561
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Feb;26(2):123-9
pubmed: 24313250
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Nov;27(11):e125-e133
pubmed: 25720794
J Clin Periodontol. 2014 Apr;41 Suppl 15:S77-91
pubmed: 24641003
Quintessence Int. 2014 Nov-Dec;45(10):853-60
pubmed: 25126630
J Periodontol. 2006 Dec;77(12):2070-9
pubmed: 17209793
J Periodontal Res. 2014 Jun;49(3):371-81
pubmed: 23815471
J Periodontol. 2020 Mar;91(3):283-288
pubmed: 32027021
J Clin Periodontol. 2014 Apr;41 Suppl 15:S6-22
pubmed: 24641001
Biomaterials. 2006 May;27(15):2907-15
pubmed: 16448693
J Clin Periodontol. 2009 Oct;36(10):868-76
pubmed: 19678861
J Clin Periodontol. 2017 Feb;44(2):185-194
pubmed: 27716970
Ann Anat. 2020 Jul;230:151484
pubmed: 32205206
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2023 Mar;111(3):568-578
pubmed: 36214252
Int J Implant Dent. 2021 Jun 7;7(1):50
pubmed: 34095987
Int J Implant Dent. 2021 Feb 8;7(1):8
pubmed: 33554323
Quintessence Int. 2020;51(4):318-327
pubmed: 32128527
J Periodontol. 2006 Jul;77(7):1267-73
pubmed: 16805692
Int J Implant Dent. 2019 Aug 19;5(1):31
pubmed: 31423548
Biomaterials. 2004 Jun;25(14):2831-41
pubmed: 14962561
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Oct;20(10):1116-23
pubmed: 19719734
Int J Implant Dent. 2022 Dec 8;8(1):56
pubmed: 36477662
J Clin Periodontol. 2017 Jul;44(7):769-776
pubmed: 28548210