Diverse patterns of bone regeneration in rabbit calvarial defects depending on the type of collagen membrane
2
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
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.
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.
참고문헌 (27)
- Benic GI, "Horizontal bone augmentation by means of guided bone regeneration", Periodontol 2000, 66, pp.13~40 (2014)
- Retzepi M, "Guided bone regeneration : biological principle and therapeutic applications", Clin Oral Implants Res, 21, pp.567~576 (2010)
- Sanz-Sánchez I, "Effectiveness of lateral bone augmentation on the alveolar crest dimension : a systematic review and meta-analysis", J Dent Res, 94, pp.128S~142S (2015)
- Salvi GE, "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, 29(Suppl), pp.294~310 (2018)
- Delgado LM, "To cross-link or not to cross-link? Cross-linking associated foreign body response of collagen-based devices", Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 21, pp.298~313 (2015)
- Owens KW, "Collagen membrane resorption in dogs : a comparative study", Implant Dent, 10, pp.49~58 (2001)
- Jorge-Herrero E, "Influence of different chemical cross-linking treatments on the properties of bovine pericardium and collagen", Biomaterials, 20, pp.539~545 (1999)
- Charulatha V, "Influence of different crosslinking treatments on the physical properties of collagen membranes", Biomaterials, 24, pp.759~767 (2003)
- An YZ, "Dehydrothermally cross-linked collagen membrane with a bone graft improves bone regeneration in a rat calvarial defect model", Materials(Basel), 10, pp.927~ (2017)
- 이주로, "Behaviors of stem cells on carbon nanotube", 생체재료학회지, 19(1), pp.15~20 (2015), 한국생체재료학회[DOI]
- Elgali I, "Guided bone regeneration : materials and biological mechanisms revisited", Eur J Oral Sci, 125, pp.315~337 (2017)
- Bunyaratavej P, "Collagen membranes : a review", J Periodontol, 72, pp.215~229 (2001)
- Sorushanova A, "The collagen suprafamily : from biosynthesis to advanced biomaterial development", Adv Mater, 31, pp.e1801651~ (2019)
- Davidenko N, "Optimisation of UV irradiation as a binding site conserving method for crosslinking collagen-based scaffolds", J Mater Sci Mater Med, 27, pp.14~ (2016)
- In Pyo Hong, "Distinctive bone regeneration of calvarial defects using biphasic calcium phosphate supplemented ultraviolet-crosslinked collagen membrane", Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science, 50(1), pp.14~27 (2020), 대한치주과학회[DOI]
- Jiménez Garcia J, "Effect of cross-linked vs noncross-linked collagen membranes on bone : a systematic review", J Periodontal Res, 52, pp.955~964 (2017)
- Lee DW, "The role of two different collagen membranes for dehiscence defect around implants in humans", J Oral Implantol, 41, pp.445~448 (2015)
- Kilkenny C, "Improving bioscience research reporting : the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research", PLoS Biol, 8, pp.e1000412~ (2010)
- Omar O, "Barrier membranes: more than the barrier effect?", J Clin Periodontol, 46(Suppl 21), pp.103~123 (2019)
- Sanz M, "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, 46(Suppl 21), pp.82~91 (2019)
- Taguchi Y, "A histological evaluation for guided bone regeneration induced by a collagenous membrane", Biomaterials, 26, pp.6158~6166 (2005)
- Turri A, "Guided bone regeneration is promoted by the molecular events in the membrane compartment", Biomaterials, 84, pp.167~183 (2016)
- Becker J, "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, 20, pp.742~749 (2009)
- Rothamel D, "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, 10, pp.10~ (2014)
- Schwarz F, "Immunohistochemical characterization of guided bone regeneration at a dehiscence-type defect using different barrier membranes : an experimental study in dogs", Clin Oral Implants Res, 19, pp.402~415 (2008)
- Song JH, "Collagen-apatite nanocomposite membranes for guided bone regeneration", J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 83, pp.248~257 (2007)
- Acevedo CA, "Design of a biodegradable UV-irradiated gelatin-chitosan", nanocomposed membrane with osteogenic ability for application in bone regeneration, 2019, pp.99, 875~886