Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.484

The effect of bacterial cellulose membrane compared with collagen membrane on guided bone regeneration  

Lee, So-Hyoun (Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Biomedical Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Lim, Youn-Mook (Advanced Radiation Technology Institute, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute)
Jeong, Sung In (Advanced Radiation Technology Institute, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute)
An, Sung-Jun (Advanced Radiation Technology Institute, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute)
Kang, Seong-Soo (Department of Veterinary Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chonnam National University)
Jeong, Chang-Mo (Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Biomedical Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Huh, Jung-Bo (Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Biomedical Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics / v.7, no.6, 2015 , pp. 484-495 More about this Journal
Abstract
PURPOSE. This study was to evaluate the effects of bacterial cellulose (BC) membranes as a barrier membrane on guided bone regeneration (GBR) in comparison with those of the resorbable collagen membranes. MATERIALS AND METHODS. BC membranes were fabricated using biomimetic technology. Surface properties were analyzed, Mechanical properties were measured, in vitro cell proliferation test were performed with NIH3T3 cells and in vivo study were performed with rat calvarial defect and histomorphometric analysis was done. The Mann-Whitney U test and the Wilcoxon signed rank test was used (${\alpha}<.05$). RESULTS. BC membrane showed significantly higher mechanical properties such as wet tensile strength than collagen membrane and represented a three-dimensional multilayered structure cross-linked by nano-fibers with 60 % porosity. In vitro study, cell adhesion and proliferation were observed on BC membrane. However, morphology of the cells was found to be less differentiated, and the cell proliferation rate was lower than those of the cells on collagen membrane. In vivo study, the grafted BC membrane did not induce inflammatory response, and maintained adequate space for bone regeneration. An amount of new bone formation in defect region loaded with BC membrane was significantly similar to that of collagen membrane application. CONCLUSION. BC membrane has potential to be used as a barrier membrane, and efficacy of the membrane on GBR is comparable to that of collagen membrane.
Keywords
Bacterial cellulose membrane; Collagen membrane; Guided bone regeneration; Rat calvarial defect;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Tissue-integrated prostheses: Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago, Quintessence, 1985. p. 199-209.
2 Misch CM. Comparison of intraoral donor sites for onlay grafting prior to implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:767-76.
3 Oda T, Sawaki Y, Ueda M. Experimental alveolar ridge augmentation by distraction osteogenesis using a simple device that permits secondary implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:95-102.
4 Hammerle CH, Karring T. Guided bone regeneration at oral implant sites. Periodontol 2000 1998;17:151-75.   DOI
5 Ashley FL, Stone RS, Alonsoartieda M, Syverud JM, Edwards JW, Sloan RF, Mooney SA. Experimental and clinical studies on the application of monomolecular cellulose filter tubes to create artificial tendon sheaths in digits. Plast Reconstr Surg Transplant Bull 1959;23:526-34.   DOI
6 Buser D, Halbritter S, Hart C, Bornstein MM, Grutter L, Chappuis V, Belser UC. Early implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration following single-tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: 12-month results of a prospective study with 20 consecutive patients. J Periodontol 2009;80:152-62.   DOI
7 Schwarz F, Rothamel D, Herten M, Wustefeld M, Sager M, Ferrari D, Becker J. Immunohistochemical characterization of guided bone regeneration at a dehiscence-type defect using different barrier membranes: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:402-15.   DOI
8 Scantlebury TV. 1982-1992: a decade of technology development for guided tissue regeneration. J Periodontol 1993;64:1129-37.   DOI
9 Buser D, Dahlin C, Schenk RK. Guided bone regeneration in implant dentistry. Chicago, Quintessence, 1994. p. 32-4.
10 Sculean A, Nikolidakis D, Schwarz F. Regeneration of periodontal tissues: combinations of barrier membranes and grafting materials-biological foundation and preclinical evidence: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:106-16.   DOI
11 Behring J, Junker R, Walboomers XF, Chessnut B, Jansen JA. Toward guided tissue and bone regeneration: morphology, attachment, proliferation, and migration of cells cultured on collagen bar rier membranes. A systematic review. Odontology 2008;96:1-11.   DOI
12 Kasaj A, Reichert C, Gotz H, Rohrig B, Smeets R, Willershausen B. In vitro evaluation of various bioabsorbable and nonresorbable barrier membranes for guided tissue regeneration. Head Face Med 2008;4:22.   DOI
13 Gentile P, Chiono V, Tonda-Turo C, Ferreira AM, Ciardelli G. Polymeric membranes for guided bone regeneration. Biotechnol J 2011;6:1187-97.   DOI
14 Polimeni G, Albandar JM, Wikesjo UM. Prognostic factors for alveolar regeneration: effect of space provision. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:951-4.   DOI
15 Fujihara K, Kotaki M, Ramakrishna S. Guided bone regeneration membrane made of polycaprolactone/calcium carbonate composite nano-fibers. Biomaterials 2005;26:4139-47.   DOI
16 Zhang J, Xu Q, Huang C, Mo A, Li J, Zuo Y. Biological properties of an anti-bacterial membrane for guided bone regeneration: an experimental study in rats. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:321-7.   DOI
17 Jovanovic SA, Hunt DR, Bernard GW, Spiekermann H, Wozney JM, Wikesjo UM. Bone reconstruction following implantation of rhBMP-2 and guided bone regeneration in canine alveolar ridge defects. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:224-30.   DOI
18 von Arx T, Buser D. Horizontal ridge augmentation using autogenous block grafts and the guided bone regeneration technique with collagen membranes: a clinical study with 42 patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:359-66.   DOI
19 Jung RE, Lecloux G, Rompen E, Ramel CF, Buser D, Hammerle CH. A feasibility study evaluating an in situ formed synthetic biodegradable membrane for guided bone regeneration in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:151-61.   DOI
20 Schwarz F, Herten M, Ferrari D, Wieland M, Schmitz L, Engelhardt E, Becker J. Guided bone regeneration at dehiscence-type defects using biphasic hydroxyapatite + beta tricalcium phosphate (Bone Ceramic) or a collagen-coated natural bone mineral (BioOss Collagen): an immunohistochemical study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;36:1198-206.   DOI
21 Felipe ME, Andrade PF, Grisi MF, Souza SL, Taba M, Palioto DB, Novaes AB. Comparison of two surgical procedures for use of the acellular dermal matrix graft in the treatment of gingival recessions: a randomized controlled clinical study. J Periodontol 2007;78:1209-17.   DOI
22 Kim SM, Lee JH, Jo JA, Lee SC, Lee SK. Development of a bioactive cellulose membrane from sea squirt skin for bone regeneration-a preliminary research. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;5:440-53.
23 Wang HL, MacNeil RL, Shieh AT, O›Neal R. Utilization of a resorbable collagen membrane in repairing gingival recession defects. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1996;8:441-8; quiz
24 Dahlin C, Linde A, Gottlow J, Nyman S. Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988;81:672-6.   DOI
25 Shim JH, Huh JB, Park JY, Jeon YC, Kang SS, Kim JY, Rhie JW, Cho DW. Fabrication of blended polycaprolactone/ poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)/${\beta}$-tricalcium phosphate thin membrane using solid freeform fabrication technology for guided bone regeneration. Tissue Eng Part A 2013;19:317-28.   DOI
26 Dugan JM, Gough JE, Eichhorn SJ. Bacterial cellulose scaffolds and cellulose nanowhiskers for tissue engineering. Nanomedicine 2013;8:287-98.   DOI
27 Embuscado ME, Marks JS, BeMiller JN. Bacterial cellulose. II. Optimization of cellulose production by Acetobacter xylinum through response surface methodology. Food Hydrocoll 1994;8:419-30.   DOI
28 Rainer J, Luiz FF. Production and application of microbial cellulose. Polym Degrad Stab 1998;59:101-6.   DOI
29 Busch O, Solheim E, Bang G, Tornes K. Guided tissue regeneration and local delivery of insulinlike growth factor I by bioerodible polyorthoester membranes in rat calvarial defects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:498-505.
30 Wan Y, Gao C, Han M, Liang H, Ren K, Wang Y, Luo H. Preparation and characterization of bacterial cellulose/heparin hybrid nanofiber for potential vascular tissue engineering scaffolds. Polym Adv Technol 2011;22:2643-8.   DOI
31 Nwe N, Furuike T, Tamura H. Selection of a biopolymer based on attachment, morphology and proliferation of fibroblast NIH/3T3 cells for the development of a biodegradable tissue regeneration template: Alginate, bacterial cellulose and gelatin. Process Biochem 2010;45:457-66.   DOI
32 Wan YZ, Huang Y, Yuan CD, Raman S, Zhu Y, Jiang HJ, He F, Gao C. Biomimetic synthesis of hydroxyapatite/bacterial cellulose nanocomposites for biomedical applications. Mater Sci Eng C 2007;27:855-64.   DOI
33 Muller FA, Muller L, Hofmann I, Greil P, Wenzel MM, Staudenmaier R. Cellulose-based scaffold materials for cartilage tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2006;27:3955-63.   DOI
34 Tuzlakoglu K, Bolgen N, Salgado AJ, Gomes ME, Piskin E, Reis RL. Nano-and micro-fiber combined scaffolds: a new architecture for bone tissue engineering. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2005;16:1099-104.   DOI
35 Helenius G, Backdahl H, Bodin A, Nannmark U, Gatenholm P, Risberg B. In vivo biocompatibility of bacterial cellulose. J Biomed Mater Res A 2006;76:431-8.
36 Miyamoto T, Takahashi S, Ito H, Inagaki H, Noishiki Y. Tissue biocompatibility of cellulose and its derivatives. J Biomed Mater Res 1989;23:125-33.   DOI
37 Zellin G, Linde A. Effects of different osteopromotive membrane porosities on experimental bone neogenesis in rats. Biomaterials 1996;17:695-702.   DOI
38 Backdahl H, Helenius G, Bodin A, Nannmark U, Johansson BR, Risberg B, Gatenholm P. Mechanical properties of bacterial cellulose and interactions with smooth muscle cells. Biomaterials 2006;27:2141-9.   DOI
39 Lundgren AK, Sennerby L, Lundgren D. Guided jaw-bone regeneration using an experimental rabbit model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;27:135-40.   DOI
40 Zaborowska M, Bodin A, Backdahl H, Popp J, Goldstein A, Gatenholm P. Microporous bacterial cellulose as a potential scaffold for bone regeneration. Acta Biomater 2010;6:2540-7.   DOI
41 Fang B, Wan YZ, Tang TT, Gao C, Dai KR. Proliferation and osteoblastic differentiation of human bone marrow stromal cells on hydroxyapatite/bacterial cellulose nanocomposite scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A 2009;15:1091-8.   DOI
42 Fujimori E. Ultraviolet light-induced change in collagen macromolecule. Biopolym 2004;3:115-9.
43 Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Fienitz T, Smeets R, Dreiseidler T, Ritter L, Happe A, Zoller J. Biocompatibility and biodegradation of a native porcine pericardium membrane: results of in vitro and in vivo examinations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:146-54.
44 Martson M, Viljanto J, Hurme T, Laippala P, Saukko P. Is cellulose sponge degradable or stable as implantation material? An in vivo subcutaneous study in the rat. Biomaterials 1999;20:1989-95.   DOI
45 Bottino MC, Thomas V, Schmidt G, Vohra YK, Chu TM, Kowolik MJ, Janowski GM. Recent advances in the development of GTR/GBR membranes for periodontal regeneration-a materials perspective. Dent Mater 2012;28:703-21.   DOI