Premium
Evaluation of a cell‐permeable barrier for guided tissue regeneration combined with demineralized bone matrix
Author(s) -
Mardas N.,
Kostopoulos L.,
Stavropoulos A.,
Karring T.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00966.x
Subject(s) - demineralized bone matrix , capsule , dbm , mesenchymal stem cell , biomedical engineering , matrix (chemical analysis) , soft tissue , penetration (warfare) , regeneration (biology) , anatomy , bone marrow , dentistry , medicine , materials science , surgery , pathology , microbiology and biotechnology , biology , composite material , amplifier , botany , optoelectronics , cmos , operations research , engineering
Aim: To evaluate whether bone formation by guided tissue regeneration (GTR) and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) can be enhanced by the use of a cell‐permeable Teflon barrier allowing the penetration of undifferentiated mesenchymal cells from the surrounding soft tissues. Material and methods: DBM was produced from the long bones of rats, and its bone‐inductive properties were tested in three rats prior to the study by intramuscular implantation. Thirty, 4‐month‐old, male albino rats of the Wistar strain were used. Following surgical exposure of the mandibular ramus, a cell‐permeable Teflon capsule, loosely packed with DBM, was placed with its opening facing the lateral surface of the ramus (test side). At the contralateral side, serving as control, a non‐perforated (cell‐occlusive) Teflon capsule, loosely packed with the same amount of DBM, was placed. After healing periods of 30, 60, and 120 days, groups of 10 animals were killed, and 40–70 μm thick undecalcified sections of the capsules were produced. Results: Computer‐assisted planimetric measurements on the histological sections disclosed similar amounts of newly formed bone in both test and control capsules. After 4 months, the new bone in the control capsules occupied 45.0% of the cross‐sectional area of the capsule, while it was 50.5% in the test capsules. This difference was not statistically significant ( P <0.05). Conclusion: Similar amounts of bone formed in cell‐permeable and cell‐occlusive capsules grafted with DBM, suggesting that invasion of undifferentiated mesenchymal cells from the surrounding soft tissues into the barrier‐protected area is unnecessary for bone formation with GTR.