Comparative morphological assessment of crosslinked and non-crosslinked xenograft biointegration quality
https://doi.org/10.33925/1683-3759-2022-27-4-288-297
Abstract
Relevance. Autografts are nowadays the gold standard for soft tissue augmentation and gingival recession coverage. However, as this method has a number of significant disadvantages, xenografts of various origins are more frequently used in dental practice. The study aimed to conduct a comparative morphological assessment of crosslinked and non-crosslinked xenogenous scaffold biointegration quality at different healing times.
Materials and Methods. The study used 108 Wistar rats (54 males, six months old, fat mass 462 ± 20; 54 females, six months old, fat mass 414 ± 7) and randomly divided them into three groups. Group 1 had a xenogenous collagen matrix (Mucograft) placed in the subperiosteal tunnel in the mandibular vestibule area; Group 2 had an acellular dermal collagen matrix (Mucoderm) implanted in the subperiosteal tunnel, group 3 had D-ribose crosslinked xenogenous scaffold (Ossix Volumax) placed in the subperiosteal tunnel.
Results. The studied xenogenous materials showed different integration and biodegradation extents. By postoperative day 7, Group 1 (Mucograft) showed a more pronounced inflammation. Non-crosslinked collagen materials had almost completely resorbed by the 30th day of observation, while a crosslinked collagen matrix was detected as homogenous masses. By the 90th day, all groups demonstrated the formation of new connective tissue with different functional characteristics; only Group 3 histologically revealed microfragments of the graft.
Conclusion. The study shows that the xenogenous crosslinked and non-crosslinked collagen membranes may promote an increase in soft tissue thickness to a different extent. However, it is essential to improve the available materials to reach an outcome comparable to the autologous soft tissue graft treatment result.
About the Authors
I. A. Melezhechkina
A. I. Yevdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Irina A. Melezhechkina, DMD, PhD Student, Department of Periodontology
Moscow
V. G. Atrushkevich
A. I. Yevdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Victoria G. Atrushkevich, DMD, PhD, DSc, Professor, Department of Periodontology
Moscow
G. N. Berchenko
National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics named after N. N. Priorov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Gennadiy N. Berchenko, MD, PhD, DSc, Professor, Head of the Department of Pathology
Moscow
References
1. Sanz M, Lorenzo R, Aranda JJ, Martin C, Orsini M. Clinical evaluation of a new collagen matrix (Mucograft prototype) to enhance the width of keratinized tissue in patients with fixed prosthetic restorations: A randomized prospective clinical trial. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2009;36(10):868–876. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.2009.01460.x
2. Mcguire MK, Scheyer ET, Nunn M. Evaluation of human recession defects treated with coronally advanced flaps and either enamel matrix derivative or connective tissue: comparison of clinical parameters at 10 years. Journal of Periodontology. 2012;83(11):1353-62. doi: 10.1902/jop.2012.110373
3. Bunyaratavej P, Wang HL. Collagen membranes: a review. Journal of Periodontology. 2001;72(2):215−229. doi: 10.1902/jop.2001.72.2.215
4. Tal H, Kozlovsky A, Artzi Z, Nemcovsky CE, Moses O. Long-term bio-degradation of cross-linked and non-cross-linked collagen barriers in human guided bone regeneration. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2008;19(3):295−302. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01424.x
5. Pitaru S, Tal H, Soldinger M, Grosskopf A, Noff M. Partial regeneration of collagen tissues using collagen barriers: Initial observation in canine. Journal of Periodontology. 1988;59(6):380−386. doi: 10.1902/jop.1988.59.6.380
6. Montjovent MO, Mathieu L, Schmoekel H, Mark S, Bourban PE, Zambelli PY, at al. Repair of critical size defects in the rat cranium using ceramic-reinforced PLA scaffolds obtained by supercritical gas foaming. Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A. 2007;83(1):41–51. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.31208
7. Kuo SM, Chang SJ, Cheng-Chie Niu G. Guided tissue regeneration with use of β-TCP/chitosan composite membrane. Journal of Applied Polymer Science. 2009;112(5):3127–3134. doi: 10.1002/app.29664
8. Hardwick R, Hayes BK, Flynn C. Devices for dentoalveolar regeneration: an up-to-date literature review. Journal of Periodontology. 1995;66(6):495–505. doi: 10.1902/jop.1995.66.6.495
9. Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Stoldt V, Herten M, Kotthaus C, Becker J. In vitro testing of thrombocyte adhesion to different collagenous hemostyptic agents. Mund-Kiefer-Gesichtschirurgie, Implantologie in Dortmund. 2006;10(3):148–154. doi: 10.1007/s10006-006-0681-5
10. Pitaru S, Tal H, Soldinger M, Noff M. Collagen membranes prevent apical migration of epithelium and support new connective tissue attachment during periodontal wound healing in dogs. Journal of Dental Research. 1989;24(4):247–253. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0765.1989.tb01789.x
11. Moses O, Vitrial D, Aboodi G, Sculean A, Tal H, Kozlovsky A, и др. Biodegradation of three different collagen membranes in the rat calvarium: a comparative study. Journal of Periodontology. 2008;79(5):905-911. doi: 10.1902/jop.2008.070361
12. Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Sculean A, Monika H, Scherbaum W, Becker J. Biocompatibility of various collagen membranes in cultures of human PDL fibroblasts and human osteoblast-like cells. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2004;15:443-449. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01039.x
13. Kodama T, Minabe M, Hori T, Watanabe Y. The effect of various concentrations of collagen barrier on periodontal wound healing. Journal of Periodontology. 1989;60(4):205–210. doi: 10.1902/jop.1989.60.4.205
14. Minabe M, Kodama T, Kogou T, Tamura T, Hori T, Watanabe Y, и др. Different cross-linked types of collagen implanted in rat palatal gingiva. Journal of Periodontology. 1989;60(1):35–43. doi: 10.1902/jop.1989.60.1.35
15. Quteish D, Dolby AE. The use of irradiatedcrosslinked human collagen membrane in guided tissue regeneration. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 1992;19(7):476–484. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1992.tb01160.x
16. Khor E. Methods for the treatment of collagenous tissues for bioprostheses. Biomaterials. 1997;18(2):95−105. doi: 10.1016/s0142-9612(96)00106-8
17. Paul BF, Mellonig JT, Towle HJ, Gray JL. Use of a collagen barrier to enhance healing in human periodontal furcation defects. International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry. 1992;12(2):123–131. PMID: 1521994
18. Blumenthal NM. The use of collagen membranes to guide regeneration of new connective tissue attachment in dogs. Journal of Periodontology. 1988;59(12):830–836. doi: 10.1902/jop.1988.59.12.830
19. Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Sager M, Herten M, Sculean A, Becker J. Biodegradation of differently cross-linked collagen membranes: an experimental study in the rat. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2005;16(3):369−378. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01108.x
20. Al-Maawi S, Orlowska A, Sader R, James Kirkpatrick C, Ghanaati S. In vivo cellular reactions to different biomaterials. Physiological and pathological aspects and their consequences. Seminars in Immunology. 2017;29:49–61. doi: 10.1016/j.smim.2017.06.001
21. Miron RJ, Zohdi H, Fujioka-Kobayashi M, Bosshardt DD. Giant cells around bone biomaterials: Osteoclasts or multi-nucleated giant cells? Acta Biomaterialia. 2016;46:15–28. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2016.09.029
22. Sela MN, Babitski E, Steinberg D, Kohavi D, Rosen G. Degradation of collagen-guided tissue regeneration membranes by proteolytic enzymes of Porphyromonas gingivalis and its inhibition by antibacterial agents. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2009;20(5):496-502. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01678.x
23. Ghanaati S, Schlee M, Webber MJ. Evaluation of the tissue reaction to a new bilayered collagen matrix in vivo and its translation to the clinic. Biomedical Materials. 2011;6(1):015010. doi: 10.1088/1748-6041/6/1/015010
24. Sanz-Martín I, Rojo E, Maldonado E, Stroppa G, Nart J, Sanz M. Structural and histological differences between connective tissue grafts harvested from the lateral palatal mucosa or from the tuberosity area. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2019;23(2):957-964. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2516-9
25. Gargallo-Albiol J, Barootchi S, Tavelli L, Wang HL. Efficacy of Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix to Augment Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Thickness Compared to Autogenous Connective Tissue Graft: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2019;34(5):1059-1069. doi: 10.11607/jomi.7497
Review
For citations:
Melezhechkina IA, Atrushkevich VG, Berchenko GN. Comparative morphological assessment of crosslinked and non-crosslinked xenograft biointegration quality. Parodontologiya. 2022;27(4):288-297. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33925/1683-3759-2022-27-4-288-297
Views:
357
Email this article 