In vitro and in vivo characterization of porcine acellular dermal matrix for gingival augmentation procedures

Abstract

Overall, the results suggest that PADM is a promising substitute for autogenous soft tissue grafts in periodontal surgery.

Influence of porcine-derived collagen matrix on endothelial progenitor cells: an in vitro study

“…The processing technique removes all antigenic components from the dermis, while maintaining the structure of the graft. The decellularization and sterilization process leaves behind a 3D matrix consisting of collagen and elastin as previously reported [7]. Before the start of the in vitro assays, discs of the mucoderm Ò matrix were prepared according to the manufacturer's instructions.…”

“…A new PDCM (mucoderm Ò , Botiss dental, Berlin, Germany) has been developed and recently characterized in vitro and in vivo. This PDCM demonstrated a sufficient growth and proliferation of different cell lines, e.g., fibroblasts and keratinocytes, and the ability to promote a rapid ingrowth and repopulation of fibroblasts and epithelium from surrounding tissues without any immunological reactions [7]. In addition, other authors evaluated the histometrical outcomes of connective tissue grafts (CTG) vs. porcine dermal matrices (PDX) reporting that PDX can be safely used for grafting dehiscence-type defects in periodontal plastic surgery [8].…”

“…The decisive advantages of PDCM are the avoidance of using human donor tissues, their unlimited availability, and low costs [7]. A new PDCM (mucoderm Ò , Botiss dental, Berlin, Germany) has been developed and recently characterized in vitro and in vivo.…”

“…Indeed, most European countries have heavy restrictions on ADM allografts and its use has been limited. As a response, acellularized materials derived from xenogeneic sources have been introduced [5][6][7].…”

Volumetric and linear changes at dental implants following grafting with volume-stable three-dimensional collagen matrices or autogenous connective tissue grafts: 6-month data

“…As this procedure leaves a second surgical site for the patient and healing may be impaired, it is desired to lower patient morbidity and at the same time shorten the healing phase [10]. Various soft tissue substitutes were evaluated in the past to replace autogenous tissue [11][12][13]. Although clinical data demonstrated promising results for various substitute materials when used for gain of keratinized tissue or recession coverage, tissue augmentation in terms of volume gain cannot be achieved predictably using these collagen materials [11,14,15].…”