Superficial Topography and Porosity of an Absorbable Barrier Membrane Impacts Soft Tissue Response in Guided Bone Regeneration

Santana, Ronaldo B.; Mattos, Carolina Miller Leite de; Francischone, Carlos Eduardo; Dyke, Thomas E. Van

doi:10.1902/jop.2010.090592

Cited by 32 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 39 publications

(137 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Membrane Properties and Their Modificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interspace was also created between the two layers of this membrane to facilitate tissue integration. In fact, the design and the architecture of the polymeric membranes are suggested to be important factors for determining their bioresorbability and osteopromotive effect in vivo (179,184). The membranes described above differ not only with respect to their architecture but also in relation to thickness, which may influence their mechanical and spacemaintaining properties during implantation.…”

Section: Membrane Architecture and Thicknessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Guided bone regeneration: materials and biological mechanisms revisited

Elgali

Omar

Dahlin

et al. 2017

European J Oral Sciences

557

619

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is commonly used in combination with the installment of titanium implants. The application of a membrane to exclude non‐osteogenic tissues from interfering with bone regeneration is a key principle of GBR. Membrane materials possess a number of properties which are amenable to modification. A large number of membranes have been introduced for experimental and clinical verification. This prompts the need for an update on membrane properties and the biological outcomes, as well as a critical assessment of the biological mechanisms governing bone regeneration in defects covered by membranes. The relevant literature for this narrative review was assessed after a MEDLINE/PubMed database search. Experimental data suggest that different modifications of the physicochemical and mechanical properties of membranes may promote bone regeneration. Nevertheless, the precise role of membrane porosities for the barrier function of GBR membranes still awaits elucidation. Novel experimental findings also suggest an active role of the membrane compartment per se in promoting the regenerative processes in the underlying defect during GBR, instead of being purely a passive barrier. The optimization of membrane materials by systematically addressing both the barrier and the bioactive properties is an important strategy in this field of research.

show abstract

Section: Membrane Properties and Their Modificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Membrane Architecture and Thicknessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guided bone regeneration: materials and biological mechanisms revisited

Elgali

Omar

Dahlin

et al. 2017

European J Oral Sciences

557

619

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A multilayer scaffold has been suggested to achieve suitable mechanical properties and porosity and mimic the structure of cancellous and cortical bone [82]. In addition to the porosity, the tri-dimensional topography of the membrane with interconnecting pores and channels is also important, as it can alter the cell occlusion properties and the biologic response of different cell types to the membrane [83]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of barrier membranes for guided bone regeneration and restoration of large bone defects: current experimental and clinical evidence

Dimitriou

Mataliotakis

Calori

et al. 2012

BMC Med

302

280

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment of large bone defects represents a great challenge in orthopedic and craniomaxillofacial surgery. Although there are several methods for bone reconstruction, they all have specific indications and limitations. The concept of using barrier membranes for restoration of bone defects has been developed in an effort to simplify their treatment by offering a sinlge-staged procedure. Research on this field of bone regeneration is ongoing, with evidence being mainly attained from preclinical studies. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current experimental and clinical evidence on the use of barrier membranes for restoration of bone defects in maxillofacial and orthopedic surgery. Although there are a few promising preliminary human studies, before clinical applications can be recommended, future research should aim to establish the 'ideal' barrier membrane and delineate the need for additional bone grafting materials aiming to 'mimic' or even accelerate the normal process of bone formation. Reproducible results and long-term observations with barrier membranes in animal studies, and particularly in large animal models, are required as well as well-designed clinical studies to evaluate their safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

show abstract

“…Regenerative theraphy of furcation defect is challenging as well 18 . In guided tissue regeneration, resorbable and non-resorbable membranes are applied along with different bone materials 26,30 . Connective tissue was used in some researches as membrane for treatment of interproximal and furcation defects 3,5,9,13,15 , indicating controversial results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regeneration of the periodontium within the furcation defect is one of the challenging aspects of periodontal therapy 18 . Initiation of osteogenesis and cementogenesis is a problem central to periodontal regeneration 24 .In guided tissue regeneration, resorbable and non-resorbable membranes are applied along with different bone materials in order to maintain space in bony defects and furcation 6,8,26,28,30 . One study showed that some genes are differentially expressed in membrane barrier-led periodontal healing compared with flap surgery alone, and this may account for the clinical outcome achieved by guided tissue regeneration 16 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of Bio-Gen with biocollagen compared with Bio-Gen with connective tissue in the treatment of class II furcation defects: a randomized clinical trial

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTreatment of furcation defects are thought to be challenging. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic parameters of Bio-Gen with Biocollagen compared with Bio-Gen with connective tissue in the treatment of Class II furcation defects.Material and MethodsIn this clinical trial, 24 patients with Class II furcation defect on a buccal or lingual mandibular molar were recruited. After oral hygiene instruction, scaling and root planing and achievement of acceptable plaque control, the patients were randomly chosen to receive either connective tissue and Bio-Gen (case group) or Biocollagen and Bio-Gen (control group). The following parameters were recorded before the first and re-entry surgery (six months later): vertical clinical attachment level (VCAL), gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), horizontal probing depth (HPD), vertical probing depth (VPD), gingival recession (GR), furcation vertical component (FVC), furcation to alveolar crest (FAC), fornix to base of defect (FBD), and furcation horizontal component (FHC) were calculated at the time of first surgery and during re-entry. A digital periapical radiograph was taken in parallel before first surgery and re-entry. The radiographs were then analyzed by digital subtraction. The differences with p value <0.05 were considered significant.ResultsOnly the mean changes of FAC, FHC, mean of FHC, FBD in re-entry revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups. HPD, VPD, FBD, FAC, and FHC showed statistically significant differences after 6 months in the case group. However, in the control group, statistically significant differences were found in GR and HPD. We did not observe any significant difference in radiographic changes among the two groups. ConclusionThe results of this trial indicate that better clinical outcomes can be obtained with connective tissue grafts in combination with bone material compared with a resorbable barrier with bone material. The differences in radiographic changes between the two groups, however, were not statistically significant.

show abstract

Superficial Topography and Porosity of an Absorbable Barrier Membrane Impacts Soft Tissue Response in Guided Bone Regeneration

Abstract: The surface topographies engineered on different sides of the barrier promote differential soft tissue responses leading, however, to similar amounts of enhanced bone formation.

Cited by 32 publications

References 39 publications

Guided bone regeneration: materials and biological mechanisms revisited

Guided bone regeneration: materials and biological mechanisms revisited

The role of barrier membranes for guided bone regeneration and restoration of large bone defects: current experimental and clinical evidence

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of Bio-Gen with biocollagen compared with Bio-Gen with connective tissue in the treatment of class II furcation defects: a randomized clinical trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About