In Vivo Biocompatibility Analysis of a Novel Barrier Membrane Based on Bovine Dermis-Derived Collagen for Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR)

Abstract

Collagen-based barrier membranes are nowadays the prevalent option for Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) procedures. Xenogeneic collagen is highly biocompatible as it shares a similar structure to native human collagen, which prevents it from eliciting an exaggerated host immune response. Most commercially available collagen barrier membranes are porcine-derived, while bovine-derived alternatives are still rarely available. The aim of the present study was to investigate the tissue responses and the barrier functionality of a novel GBR membrane composed of bovine collagen type I (BM). Therefore, the subcutaneous implantation model in Wistar rats was performed to compare the novel medical device with two already clinically used native porcine-based barrier membranes, i.e., Jason® membrane (JM) and Bio-Gide® (BG), at 10-, 30-, 60-, and 90-days post implantationem. Histochemical and immunohistochemical stains were used for histopathological evaluation including a biocompatibility scoring according to the DIN EN ISO 10993-6 norm as well as histomorphometrical analyses of the occurrence of M1 and M2 macrophages and the transmembraneous vascularization. The bovine membrane exhibited a host tissue reaction that was comparable to both control materials, which was verified by the scoring results and the histomorphometrical macrophage measurements. Moreover, the novel membrane exhibited an integration pattern without material fragmentation up to day 60. At day 90, material fragmentation was observable that allowed for “secondary porosity” including transmembrane vascularization. The results of this study suggest that the novel bovine barrier membrane is fully biocompatible and suitable for indications that require GBR as a suitable alternative to porcine-sourced barrier membranes.

Barrier Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR): A Focus on Recent Advances in Collagen Membranes

“…Reactive tissue could penetrate the membrane through the interstices between the fragments and substantial vascularization occurred. This particular pattern of integration and degradation is not observed in porcine collagen membranes and has been defined by researchers as “secondary porosity” [ 219 , 220 ].…”

“…Reactive tissue could penetrate the membrane through the interstices between the fragments and substantial vascularization occurred. This particular pattern of integration and degradation is not observed in porcine collagen membranes and has been defined by researchers as "secondary porosity" [219,220]. Barbeck et al evaluated two porcine dermal-derived collagen membranes (Mucoderm and Collprotect) and noted that although neither membrane showed successful transmembrane vascularization, the Mucoderm membrane containing the vascular backbone allowed for microvascular penetration associated with the inward growth of connective tissue [87].…”

A comparative in vitro and in vivo study of porcine‐ and bovine‐derived non‐cross‐linked collagen membranes

“…In China, two of the most extensively used non‐cross‐linked collagen membranes are Bio‐gide (BG), which is a porcine‐derived, non‐cross‐linked collagen membrane, and Heal‐all (HA), which is a bovine‐derived, non‐cross‐linked membrane made from the skin using decellularization. Experiments have revealed that bovine and porcine derived non‐cross‐linked collagen membranes degraded differently in vitro, and in vivo, 34,35 a detailed study of in vitro biophysical characters and in vivo host tissue responsive processes of HA and BG are hence needed as it might be instructive to their respective clinical applications.…”

“…Experiments have revealed that bovine and porcine derived non-crosslinked collagen membranes degraded differently in vitro, and in vivo, 34,35 a detailed study of in vitro biophysical characters and in vivo host tissue responsive processes of HA and BG are hence needed as it might be instructive to their respective clinical applications.…”

In VivoAnalysis of the Immune Response to Strontium- and Copper-doped Bioglass

“…Then 100 mg of bioglass was implanted in the subcutaneous pocket under sterile conditions and the wound was stitched with nonabsorbable suture materials. At 10 or 30 days post implantation, animals were sacrificed using an overdose of the anesthesia to analyze both the early and late tissue responses to the biomaterials in accordance with previous publications (28,32). The biomaterials were extracted with their surrounding tissue and placed in formaldehyde solution for preservation for 24 Histological workup.…”