Evaluation of two membranes in guided bone tissue regeneration: histological study in rabbits

  • Nelson Luiz de Macedo
  • Fábio da Silva Matuda
  • Luís Guilherme Scavone de Macedo
  • Adriana Socorro Ferreira Monteiro
  • Marcia Carneiro Valera
  • Yasmin Rodarte Carvalho

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate bone regeneration in rabbits, comparing two types of physical barriers used to treat bone defects in guided tissue regeneration (GTR). Two osseous defects (8 mm in diameter) were performed in each hind-foot of four adult rabbits, using surgical burs with constant sterile saline solution irrigation. Defects obtained on the right hind-foots were protected with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) barriers while Gengiflex membranes were used over wounds created in the left hind-foots. Rabbits were sacrificed after three months for histological evaluation of treatments performed. Defects covered with PTFE barriers were completely re- paired with bone tissue. Incomplete lamellar bone formation was detected in defects treated with Gengiflex membrane, resulting in voids and lack of continuity of bone deposition. Results withdrawn from this study demonstrated that the non-porous PTFE barrier fulfilled all requirements to induce natural bone tissue regeneration, thus becoming a more effective alternative to treat osseous defects than Gengiflex membrane.

References

1.Nyman S, Gottlow J, Karring T, Lindhe J. The regenerative potential of the periodontal ligament: an experimental study in the monkey. J Clin Periodontol 1982; 9: 257-65.
2. Caffesse RG, Quiñones CR. Guided tissue regeneration: biologic rationale, surgical technique, and clinical results. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1992; 13: 166-78.
3. Gottlow J, Laurell L, Lundgren D, Mathisen T, Nyman S, Rylander H et al. Periodontal tissue response to a new bioresorbable guided tissue regeneration device: a longitudinal study in monkeys. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1994; 14: 436-49.
4. Iglhaut J, Aukhil I, Simpson DM, Johnston MC, Koch G. Progenitor cell kinetics during guided tissue regeneration in experimental periodontal wounds. J Periodont Res 1988; 23: 107-17.
5. Melcher AH. On the repair potential of periodontal tissues. J Periodontol 1976; 4: 256-60.
6. Dahlin C, Gottlow J, Linde A, Nyman S. Healing of maxillary and mandibular bone defects using a membrane technique. Scand J Plast Reconstr Hand Surg 1990; 24: 13-9.
7. Seibert J, Nyman S. Localized ridge augmentation in dogs: a pilot study using membrane and hydroxyaptite. J Periodontol 1990; 61: 157-65.
8. Nyman S. Bone regeneration using the principle of guided tissue regeneration. J Clin Periodontol 1991; 18: 494-8.
9. Macedo NL. Regeneração tecidual dirigida no tratamento do envolvimento de bifurcação grau II em molares: estudo clínico usando membrana de politetrafluoretileno [Dissertação Mestrado]. São José dos Campos: Faculdade de Odontologia de São José dos Campos, Universidade Estadual Paulista; 1992
10. Caffesse RG, Nasjleti CE, Morrison EC, Sanchez R. Guided tissue regeneration. Comparison of bioabsorbable and nonbioabsorbable membranes: histologic and histometric study in dogs. J Periodontol 1994; 65: 583-91.
11. Laurell F, Falk H, Fornell J, Johard G, Gottlow J. Clinical use of a bioresorbable matrix barrier in guided tissue regeneration therapy: case series. J Periodontol 1994; 65: 967-75.
12. Novaes Junior AB, Novaes AB. IMZ implants placed into extraction sockets in association with membrane therapy (Gengiflex) and porous hydroxyapatite: a case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992; 7: 536-40.
13. Sonohara MK, Greghi SLA. Avaliação da resposta biológica a diferentes barreiras mecânicas utilizadas na técnica de regeneração tecidual guiada. Rev Fac Odont Bauru 1994; 2: 96-102.
14. Novaes Junior AB, Dias LZS, Moraes NH, Novaes AB. Regeneração tecidual guiada: desenvolvimento de membrana nacional. Periodontia 1992; 1: 20-3.
15. Warrer K, Gotfredsen K, Hjorting-Hansen E, Karring T. Guided tissue regeneration ensures osseointegration of dental implants placed into extraction sockets: an experimental study in monkies. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991; 2: 166-71.
16. Boyne PJ. Regeneration of alveolar bone beneath cellulose acetate filter implants. J Dent Res 1964; 43: 827.
17. Schmid J, Hammerle CH, Olah AJ, Lang NP. Membrane permeability is unnecessary for guided generation of new bone: an experimental study in the rabbit. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994; 5: 125-30.
18. Lundgren AK, Lundgren D, Taylor Å. Influence of barrier occlusiveness on guided bone augmentation: an experimental study in the rat. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998; 9: 251-60.
19. Linde A, Thoren C, Dahlin C, Sandberg E. Creation of new bone by an osteopromotive membrane technique: an experimental study in rats. J Maxillofac Surg 1993; 51: 892-7.
Published
2016-12-12
How to Cite
DE MACEDO, Nelson Luiz et al. Evaluation of two membranes in guided bone tissue regeneration: histological study in rabbits. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, [S.l.], p. 395-400, dec. 2016. ISSN 1677-3225. Available at: <https://www.fop.unicamp.br/bjos-new/index.php/bjos/article/view/992>. Date accessed: 19 june 2021.
Section
Original Research

Most read articles by the same author(s)