Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Diverse patterns of bone regeneration in rabbit calvarial defects depending on the type of collagen membrane

  • Hong, Inpyo (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute of Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Khalid, Alharthi Waleed (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute of Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Pae, Hyung-Chul (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute of Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Song, Young Woo (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute of Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Cha, Jae-Kook (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute of Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Lee, Jung-Seok (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute of Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Paik, Jeong-Won (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute of Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Choi, Seong-Ho (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute of Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2020.07.05
  • Accepted : 2020.11.09
  • Published : 2021.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Various crosslinking methods have been introduced to increase the longevity of collagen membranes. The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the degradation and bone regeneration patterns of 3 collagen membranes. Methods: Four 8-mm-diameter circular bone defects were created in the calvaria of 10 rabbits. In each rabbit, each defect was randomly allocated to 1) the sham control group, 2) the non-crosslinked collagen sponge (NS) group, 3) the chemically crosslinked collagen membrane (CCM) group, or 4) the biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP)-supplemented ultraviolet (UV)-crosslinked collagen membrane (UVM) group. Each defect was covered with the allocated membrane without any graft material. Rabbits were sacrificed at either 2 or 8 weeks post-surgery, and radiographic and histologic analyses were done. Results: New bone formed underneath the membrane in defects in the CCM and UVM groups, with a distinctive new bone formation pattern, while new bone formed from the base of the defect in the NS and control groups. The CCM maintained its shape until 8 weeks, while the UVM and NS were fully degraded at 8 weeks; simultaneously, sustained inflammatory infiltration was found in the margin of the CCM, while it was absent in the UVM. In conclusion, the CCM showed longer longevity than the UVM, but was accompanied by higher levels of inflammation. Conclusions: Both the CCM and UVM showed distinctive patterns of enhancement in new bone formation in the early phase. UV crosslinking can be a biocompatible alternative to chemical crosslinking.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning) (No. NRF-2017R1A2B4002782).

References

  1. Benic GI, Hammerle CH. Horizontal bone augmentation by means of guided bone regeneration. Periodontol 2000 2014;66:13-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12039
  2. Retzepi M, Donos N. Guided bone regeneration: biological principle and therapeutic applications. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:567-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01922.x
  3. Sanz-Sanchez I, Ortiz-Vigon A, Sanz-Martin I, Figuero E, Sanz M. Effectiveness of lateral bone augmentation on the alveolar crest dimension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2015;94:128S-142S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034515594780
  4. Salvi GE, Monje A, Tomasi C. Long-term biological complications of dental implants placed either in pristine or in augmented sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29 Suppl 16:294-310. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13123
  5. Delgado LM, Bayon Y, Pandit A, Zeugolis DI. To cross-link or not to cross-link? Cross-linking associated foreign body response of collagen-based devices. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2015;21:298-313. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.teb.2014.0290
  6. Owens KW, Yukna RA. Collagen membrane resorption in dogs: a comparative study. Implant Dent 2001;10:49-58. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-200101000-00016
  7. Jorge-Herrero E, Fernandez P, Turnay J, Olmo N, Calero P, Garcia R, et al. Influence of different chemical cross-linking treatments on the properties of bovine pericardium and collagen. Biomaterials 1999;20:539-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(98)90205-8
  8. Charulatha V, Rajaram A. Influence of different crosslinking treatments on the physical properties of collagen membranes. Biomaterials 2003;24:759-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00412-X
  9. An YZ, Heo YK, Lee JS, Jung UW, Choi SH. Dehydrothermally cross-linked collagen membrane with a bone graft improves bone regeneration in a rat calvarial defect model. Materials (Basel) 2017;10:927. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10080927
  10. Park JY, Jung IH, Kim YK, Lim HC, Lee JS, Jung UW, et al. Guided bone regeneration using 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl) carbodiimide (EDC)-cross-linked type-I collagen membrane with biphasic calcium phosphate at rabbit calvarial defects. Biomater Res 2015;19:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-015-0038-y
  11. Elgali I, Omar O, Dahlin C, Thomsen P. Guided bone regeneration: materials and biological mechanisms revisited. Eur J Oral Sci 2017;125:315-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12364
  12. Bunyaratavej P, Wang HL. Collagen membranes: a review. J Periodontol 2001;72:215-29. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2001.72.2.215
  13. Sorushanova A, Delgado LM, Wu Z, Shologu N, Kshirsagar A, Raghunath R, et al. The collagen suprafamily: from biosynthesis to advanced biomaterial development. Adv Mater 2019;31:e1801651.
  14. Davidenko N, Bax DV, Schuster CF, Farndale RW, Hamaia SW, Best SM, et al. Optimisation of UV irradiation as a binding site conserving method for crosslinking collagen-based scaffolds. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2016;27:14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-015-5627-8
  15. Hong I, Khalid AW, Pae HC, Cha JK, Lee JS, Paik JW, et al. Distinctive bone regeneration of calvarial defects using biphasic calcium phosphate supplemented ultraviolet-crosslinked collagen membrane. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2020;50:14-27. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2020.50.1.14
  16. Jimenez Garcia J, Berghezan S, Carames JMM, Dard MM, Marques DNS. Effect of cross-linked vs noncross-linked collagen membranes on bone: a systematic review. J Periodontal Res 2017;52:955-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/jre.12470
  17. Lee DW, Kim KT, Joo YS, Yoo MK, Yu JA, Ryu JJ. The role of two different collagen membranes for dehiscence defect around implants in humans. J Oral Implantol 2015;41:445-8. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00214
  18. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 2010;8:e1000412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412
  19. Omar O, Elgali I, Dahlin C, Thomsen P. Barrier membranes: more than the barrier effect? J Clin Periodontol 2019;46 Suppl 21:103-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13068
  20. Sanz M, Dahlin C, Apatzidou D, Artzi Z, Bozic D, Calciolari E, et al. Biomaterials and regenerative technologies used in bone regeneration in the craniomaxillofacial region: consensus report of group 2 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration. J Clin Periodontol 2019;46 Suppl 21:82-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13123
  21. Taguchi Y, Amizuka N, Nakadate M, Ohnishi H, Fujii N, Oda K, et al. A histological evaluation for guided bone regeneration induced by a collagenous membrane. Biomaterials 2005;26:6158-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.03.023
  22. Turri A, Elgali I, Vazirisani F, Johansson A, Emanuelsson L, Dahlin C, et al. Guided bone regeneration is promoted by the molecular events in the membrane compartment. Biomaterials 2016;84:167-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.01.034
  23. Becker J, Al-Nawas B, Klein MO, Schliephake H, Terheyden H, Schwarz F. Use of a new cross-linked collagen membrane for the treatment of dehiscence-type defects at titanium implants: a prospective, randomized-controlled double-blinded clinical multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:742-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01689.x
  24. Rothamel D, Benner M, Fienitz T, Happe A, Kreppel M, Nickenig HJ, et al. Biodegradation pattern and tissue integration of native and cross-linked porcine collagen soft tissue augmentation matrices - an experimental study in the rat. Head Face Med 2014;10:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-10-10
  25. Schwarz F, Rothamel D, Herten M, Wustefeld M, Sager M, Ferrari D, et al. Immunohistochemical characterization of guided bone regeneration at a dehiscence-type defect using different barrier membranes: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:402-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01486.x
  26. Song JH, Kim HE, Kim HW. Collagen-apatite nanocomposite membranes for guided bone regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2007;83:248-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.30790
  27. Acevedo CA, Olguin Y, Briceno M, Forero JC, Osses N, Diaz-Calderon P, et al. Design of a biodegradable UV-irradiated gelatin-chitosan/nanocomposed membrane with osteogenic ability for application in bone regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2019;99:875-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2019.01.135

Cited by

  1. 3D-Printed Barrier Membrane Using Mixture of Polycaprolactone and Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate for Regeneration of Rabbit Calvarial Defects vol.14, pp.12, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14123280