Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

Cross-linked versus Natural Collagen Membrane for Guided Bone Regeneration? A Literature Review

Adel Bouguezzi*, Aymen Debibi, Abdellatif Chokri, Sameh Sioud, Hajer Hentati, Jemil Selmi

University of Monastir, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Oral Health and Oro-Facial Rehabilitation Laboratory Research (LR12ES11), Monastir, Tunisia

Abstract: Guided bone regeneration (GBR), a method which originates from guided tissue regeneration (GTR), is based on a concept of dividing bone from soft tissue, preventing apical migration of the gingival epithelial and connective tissue inside the defect with a membrane as a barrier which favorites proliferation of regeneration potent cells and their differentiation in the desired tissue type. Depending on the reaction to their biological surroundings, membranes can be grouped as non-resorbable and resorbable. Due to biological degradation, resorbable membranes induce tissue response, which may negatively impact wound healing and disturb regeneration. The aim of this study is to provide a review on the performance and the main outcomes of two different types of collagen membranes (Native Vs cross linked) used in conjunction with GBR in order to gain awareness of the limits and to be able to choose the right membrane required by the clinical condition.

Keywords: guided bone regeneration, membrane, collagen, cross-linked

Received May 31, 2020; Revised June 23, 2020; Accepted July 02, 2020

Citation: Adel Bouguezzi, Aymen Debibi, Abdellatif Chokri, Sameh Sioud, Hajer Hentati, Jemil Selmi, Cross-linked versus Natural Collagen Membrane for Guided Bone Regeneration? A Literature Review. American Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 8 (1). 12-16. January 2020. doi:10.12691/ajmbr-8-1-2

1. Introduction

The reconstruction of bone defects is a complex process influenced by age, bone structure, vascularization, defect morphology and adjacent soft tissue.

The concept of guided bone regeneration (GBR) has been used in experimental maxillofacial reconstruction since the mid-1960s [1]. According to Dahlin et al. [2] the use of a membrane technique prevents the migration of fibroblasts and soft connective tissue cells into the intended regeneration site. In the intervening period, the evolution of these bone volume growth techniques has improved [3,4]. In 1996 Hermann and Buser, [5] discussed the critical surgical factors in undertaking an adequate and predictable regeneration: use of an appropriate membrane, attaining primary soft tissue healing, creation and maintenance of a membrane-protected space, close adaptation and stabilization of the membrane to the surrounding bone and sufficient length of healing period. Wang and Boyapati in 2006 [6] also published the PASS principles: primary wound closure without tension to enable proper healing by means of first intention and reduction of the risk of membrane exposure, angiogenesis to promote blood supply, space maintenance to create a bed for the undifferentiated mesenchymal cells and clot stability to allow for the proper development of these cells.

Most of the commercially available non resorbable membranes made up of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) have proven to be effective in preventing connective and epithelial tissue invasion into the healing area and could therefore promote osteogenesis. However, the membranes could be exposed prematurely, and the graft materials might become contaminated by microorganisms, leading to infections, thus hindering bone regeneration [7]. To avoid this problem, clinicians have investigated the benefits of using biodegradable collagen membranes .

This article aims to review available collagen membranes used in guided bone regeneration applications and to compare vascularization, durability, risk of exposure and regeneration volume of two different types of collagen membranes (Native Vs cross linked).

2. Materials and Methods

A literature search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE database and including in vitro, in vivo , human studies and reviews that reported data on Collagen membranes for bone regeneration in order to provide a review of the main characteristics, and to compare outcomes of native collagen versus cross-linked collagen membranes .

3. Current Status of Knowledge

Collagen has many features, other than structural, including low immunogenicity, good hemostatic capacity, a chemotactic action on regenerative cells such as fibroblasts and osteoblasts and, lastly, good dimensional stability. Collagen molecule alone is not stable. Therefore, in nature it is arranged into a triple helix structure, also called collagen fibril. Many fibrils are then arranged together with a covalent cross-linked bond to obtain a collagen fiber [8]. There are different types of collagen, depending on the location and function. To date, more than 20 types have been classified. Collagen from type I to type IV are the most common in the human body and their localization is shown in Table 1.

To improve the resistance to degradation and prolonging the effect of resorbable CM, physical, chemical and enzymatic processes were developed to improve durability by cross-linking the existing collagen fibers and thus creating resorbable cross-linked CM [9,10,11]. The formation of collagen cross-links is due to the presence of two aldehyde-containing amino acids which react with other amino acids in collagen to generate difunctional, trifunctional, and tetrafunctional cross-links. The collagen molecules assembled in the naturally occurring fibrous polymer is a prerequisite for the development of these cross-links. When this is achieved, cross-linking occurs in a spontaneous, progressive fashion. The chemical structures of the cross-links dictate that very precise intermolecular alignments must occur in the collagen polymer. This seems to be a function of each specific collagen because the relative abundance of the different cross-links varies markedly, depending on the collagen tissue origin [12]. Various chemical and physical cross-linking methods, such as ultraviolet light, glutaraldehyde (which is a reference agent for the cross-linking reactions), glutaraldehyde plus irradiation, hexa-methylenediisocyanate (HMDIC), diphenylphosphorylazide, and enzymatic ribose cross-linking, have been used to boost the biomechanical properties of the collagen fibers [11]. The manufacturing process involves the extraction of collagen into monomeric fibrils, which are then reconstructed and cross-linked to form an improved collagen-based biomaterial [13].

Currently, most resorbable membranes are made of collagen and there are a variety of membranes commercially available (Table 2) [14]. It is important to be able to choose a membrane that maintains its structural integrity for the time necessary to the proliferation and maturation of the desired cells inside the wound. Commercially available CM provide different resorption time.

Table 1. Principal types of collagen [8]

Table 2. Non exhaustive list of available collagen membranes for clinical use (n.d.=not declared) [14]

4. Membrane Vascularization

There is a controversy arising from whether to apply cross-linked or non-cross-linked membranes in GBR. Although many studies have proved that with cross-linking the biodegradation of the collagen membrane is being expanded, and that they have shown positive, but limited effect on GBR in different types of experimental defect models [15,16], other studies have shown that their application associated with the initial reaction of foreign body, reduces tissue integration and with compromised trans membrane vascularization [17,18]. Despite all the disagreements, it has been shown that membrane vascularization is being improved in 2 weeks after its submucosal implantation in rats by using certain procedures of cross linking [19]. This is probably because the initial hyperemia is being caused in the neighboring tissue, which directs angiogenesis toward experimental membrane. In 2006 Schwarz et al. [19] examined the model of angiogenesis in natural and crossed-linked collagen membranes, because previous tests have shown that vascularization is weaker in cross-linked membranes. The conclusion was that angiogenesis in different types of membranes is without statistical significance. In two studies done in the Military Medical Academy, defects covered with cross-linked collagen membranes showed a better level of vascularization in comparison with defects with non-cross-linked membrane or with empty defects [20,21].

5. Membrane Degradation

The barrier durability and integrity on regenerated bone dehiscence’s was carried out by Tal et al. [22] and Lee et al. [23] from histologic sections via biopsies to assess the membrane degradation with 6 and 4 months follow-ups respectively. The findings from the biopsy samples ranged from 77.8% to 100% on membrane remnants from the histologic observations on the cross-link group while no remnant was observed in the non-cross-link membrane group, although no statistical analysis was performed for this outcome.

Calciolari et al. [24] showed as native CM, derived from porcine type I and III collagen, were biocompatible and inert, did not elicit an inflammatory or foreign body reaction, and were able to promote the bone regeneration process. Membrane integrity was well maintained during the first 14 days but, at 30 days, pronounced signs of degradation, high levels of remodeling and a significant reduction in thickness were identified. Similar findings were published by Moses et al, showing significant reduction in membrane thickness from 14 to 30 days of healing, as well as a significant reduction in the total amount of collagen.

Moses et al. [25] evaluated the biodegradation of three different commercially available CM. Statistically significant differences in the amount of residual membrane material were recorded within each membrane (among different time moments) and among different membranes at the same time moments. At 28 days, the least amount of residual collagen area was observed in the non-cross-linked membranes (13.9% ± 10.25%), followed by the glutaraldehyde cross-linked (24.7% ± 35.11%) and ribose cross-linked (91.3% ± 10.35%) groups. Residual membrane thickness, expressed as the percentage of baseline thickness, presented a similar pattern

Rothamel [26] concluded that the processing techniques influenced the collagen properties in a different intensity. Dehydrothermal cross-linking and special defatting did not notably change the biodegradation pattern, whereas cross-linking using ethylene dioxide led to significant higher volume stability of the matrix.

Hurzeler et al [27] reported that the noncrosslinked membrane maintained the structure of collagen for more than 6 months.

Moses et al [25] reported that membranes cross-linked with ribose showed a lower degree of degradation than non-cross-linked membranes and those cross-linked with glutaldehyde.

6. Premature Membrane Exposure and Wound Infection

Post-surgical complications may appear during a GBR, premature membrane exposure being to the oral environment and subsequent bacterial colonization the most frequent. This complication has been reported to be common problems of non-resorbable membranes, which could necessitate their premature retrieval.

In a systematic review conducted by Garcia [28], he found that spontaneous non-cross-linked membrane exposures ranged from 11% to 32.1%. From the crosslinked membrane groups, Ossix® cross-linked membranes recorded rates from 12.5% to 50% and for VN® cross-linked membranes, rates ranged from 52.17% to 56%. All authors from the included studies reported statistically significant differences between the two types of membranes for this outcome.

Clinically, chemical cross-linking was accompanied by more adverse events such as wound dehiscence, graft exposure and insufficient bone regeneration [29], based on the compromised tissue integration.

Chemically cross-linked CM have longer degradation times but also have significantly higher membrane exposure rates, up to 70.5% [25,30]. In case of a premature exposure, cross linked collagen membrane was associated with an increased frequency of wound infections [31].

7. Volumetric Bone Regeneration

The efficacy of these membranes is still controversial. Friedmann et al [32] reported that on exposure, cross-linked collagen membranes maintained more grafted bone volume than e-PTFE membranes. In contrast, Bornstein et al [16] reported that in animal studies, cross-linked membranes showed limited bone regeneration when compared to other collagen membranes. When these membranes were exposed early, complications associated with soft tissues increased.

In a recent human study [31], comparisons of cross-linked to non-crosslinked conventional collagen membrane, placed at implant dehiscence sites showed that both membranes yielded comparable bone regeneration results. Nevertheless, it was concluded, that premature membrane exposure of the cross-linked membrane might impair soft tissue healing or may even cause wound infections.

Brunel et al. and Mattson et al. [10,33] noted that the slower resorption degree of the collagen membranes depends on the intensity of crosslinking between the collagen fibers of the resorbable membranes and therefore suggest an increase in regenerated bone volume in membranes with longer resorptions.

Simion et al [34] reported that exposed membranes showed significantly decreased bone regeneration (41.6% vs 96.6%).

8. Conclusion

In the collagen membrane family, the choice between cross-linked and non-cross-linked CM may affect their clinical use. Within the limitations of the present systematic review w, it can be concluded that the degree of cross-linking of collagen fibers, indeed, have shown to affect the degradation rate, and the preservation of the underlying bone graft. Longer degradation times and membrane resistance to resorption, however, are also linked to a significantly higher exposure rates for cross-linked collagen membranes, and, sometimes, a foreign body reaction during resorption.

9. What Is Known About This Topic

- Currently, most resorbable membranes are made of collagen and there are a variety of membranes commercially available.

- To improve the resistance to degradation and prolonging the effect of resorbable collagen membranes, physical, chemical and enzymatic processes were developed to improve durability by cross-linking the existing collagen fibers

10. What This Study Adds

- It is important to be able to choose a membrane that maintains its structural integrity for the time necessary to the proliferation and maturation of the desired cells inside the wound.

- Chemically cross-linked CM have longer degradation times but also have significantly higher membrane exposure rates.

- Exposed membranes showed significantly decreased bone regeneration.

Competing interests

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

[1]   | Boyne PJ. Restoration of osseous defects in maxillofacial casualities. J Am Dent Assoc. 1969; 78: 767-776.
[2]   | Dahlin C, Linde A, Gottlow J, Nyman S. Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988; 81: 672-676.
[3]   | Scantlebury TV. 1982-1992: a decade of technology development for guided tissue regeneration. J Periodontol. 1993; 64: 1129-1137.
[4]   | Hammerle CH, Jung RE. Bone augmentation by means of barrier membranes. Periodontol 2000. 2003; 33: 36-53.
[5]   | Hermann JS, Buser D. Guided bone regeneration for dental implants. Curr Opin Periodontol. 1996; 3: 168-177.
[6]   | Wang HL, Boyapati L. “PASS” principles for predictable bone regeneration. Implant Dent. 2006; 15: 8-17.
[7]   | Chiapasco M, Abati S, Romeo E, Vogel G. Clinical outcome of autogenous bone blocks or guided bone regeneration with e-PTFE membranes for the reconstruction of narrow edentulous ridges. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999; 10: 278-288.
[8]   | Ricard-Blum, S. The Collagen Family. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2011, 3, 1-19.
[9]   | Behring, J.; Junker, R.; Walboomers, X.F.; Chessnut, B.; Jansen, J.A. Toward Guided Tissue and Bone Regeneration: Morphology, Attachment, Proliferation, and Migration of Cells Cultured on Collagen Barrier Membranes. A Systematic Review. Odontology 2008, 96, 1-11.
[10]   | Brunel, G.; Piantoni, P.; Elharar, F.; Benque, E.; Marin, P.; Zahedi, S. Regeneration of Rat Calvarial Defects Using a Bioabsorbable Membrane Technique: Influence of Collagen Cross-Linking. J. Periodontol. 1996, 67, 1342-1348.
[11]   | Zahedi, S.; Legrand, R.; Brunel, G.; Albert, A.; Dewe, W.; Coumans, B.; Bernard, J.P. Evaluation of a Diphenylphosphorylazide-Crosslinked Collagen Membrane for Guided Bone Regeneration in Mandibular Defects in Rats. J. Periodontol. 1998, 69, 1238-1246.
[12]   | Tanzer, M.L. Cross-Linking of Collagen. Science 1973, 180, 561-566.
[13]   | Chia-Lai, P.-J.; Orlowska, A.; Al-Maawi, S.; Dias, A.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, X.; Zender, N.; Sader, R.; Kirkpatrick, C.J.; Ghanaati, S. Sugar-Based Collagen Membrane Cross-Linking Increases Barrier Capacity of Membranes. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 22, 1851-1863.
[14]   | Sbricoli, L.; Guazzo, R.; Annunziata, M.; Gobbato, L.; Bressan, E.; Nastri, L. Selection of Collagen Membranes for Bone Regeneration: A Literature Review. Mater. 2020, 13, 786
[15]   | von Arx T, Broggini N, Jensen SS, Bornstein MM, Schenk RK, Buser D. Membrane durability and tissue response of different bioresorbable barrier membranes: a histologic study in the rabbit calvarium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20(6): 843-53.
[16]   | Bornstein MM, Bosshardt D, Buser D. Effect of two different bioabsorbable collagen membranes on guided bone regeneration: a comparative istomorphometric study in the dog mandible. J Periodontol 2007; 78(10): 1943-53.
[17]   | 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. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 16(3): 369−78.
[18]   | Schwarz F, Rothamel D, Herten M, Wüstefeld M, Sager M, Ferrari D, et al. 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(4): 402-15.
[19]   | Schwarz F, Rothamel D, Herten M, Sager M, Becker J. Angiogenesis pattern of native and cross-linked collagen membranes: an immunohistochemical study in the rat. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17(4): 403-9.
[20]   | Bubalo M. The impact of demineralized resorbable membrane of human and bovine origin, same and different thickness on ossification of bone defects [dissertation]. Kosovska Mitrovica: Faculty of Medicine, University of Pristina, Kosovska Mitrovica; 2013.
[21]   | Dubovina D. Postextraction alveolar ridge preservation with collagene membrane of different origin and thickness and bone substitute [dissertation]. Kosovska Mitrovica: Faculty of Medicine, University of Pristina, Kosovska Mitrovica; 2014.
[22]   | 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. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19: 295-302.
[23]   | Lee JH, Lee JS, Baek WS, et al. Assessment of dehydrothermally crosslinked collagen membrane for guided bone regeneration around periimplant dehiscence defects: a randomized single-blinded clinical trial. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2015; 45: 229-237.
[24]   | Calciolari, E.; Ravanetti, F.; Strange, A.; Mardas, N.; Bozec, L.; Cacchioli, A.; Kostomitsopoulos, N.; Donos, N. Degradation Pattern of a Porcine Collagen Membrane in an in Vivo Model of Guided Bone Regeneration. J. Periodontal Res. 2018, 53, 430-439.
[25]   | Moses, O.; Vitrial, D.; Aboodi, G.; Sculean, A.; Tal, H.; Kozlovsky, A.; Artzi, Z.; Weinreb, M.; Nemcovsky, C.E. Biodegradation of Three Different Collagen Membranes in the Rat Calvarium: A Comparative Study. J. Periodontol. 2008, 79, 905-911.
[26]   | Rothamel et al.: Biodegradation pattern and tissue integration of native and cross-linked porcine collagen soft tissue augmentation matrices – an experimental study in the rat. Head & Face Medicine 2014 10: 10.
[27]   | Hurzeler MB, Kohal RJ, Naghshbandi J, et al. Evaluation of a new bioresorbable barrier to facilitate guided bone regeneration around exposed implant threads. An experimental study in the monkey. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998; 27: 315-320.
[28]   | Jiménez Garcia J, Berghezan S, Caramês JMM, Dard MM, Marques DNS. Effect of crosslinked vs non-cross-linked collagen membranes on bone: A systematic review. J Periodont Res. 2017; 00: 1-10.
[29]   | Annen BM, Ramel CF, Hammerle CH, Jung RE: Use of a new cross-linked collagen membrane for the treatment of peri-implant dehiscence defects: a randomised controlled double-blinded clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2011, 4: 87-100.
[30]   | Friedmann, A.; Gissel, K.; Soudan, M.; Kleber, B.M.; Pitaru, S.; Dietrich, T. Randomized Controlled Trial on Lateral Augmentation Using Two Collagen Membranes: Morphometric Results on Mineralized Tissue Compound. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2011, 38, 677-685.

[31]  
Becker, J., Al-Nawas, B., Klein, M.O., Schliephake, H., Terheyden, H. & Schwarz, F. (2009) 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 multicenterstudy. Clinical Oral Implants Research 20: 742-749.

[32]   | Friedmann A, Strietzel FP, Maretzki B, Pitaru S, Bernimoulin JP. Observations on a new collagen barrier membrane in 16 consecutively treated patients. Clinical and histological findings. J Periodontol. 2001; 72: 1616-1623.
[33]   | Mattson JS, McLey LL, Jabro MH. Treatment of intrabony defects with collagen membrane barriers. Case reports. J Periodontol. 1995; 66: 635-645.
[34]   | Simion M, Baldoni M, Rossi P, Zaffe D. A comparative study of the effectiveness of e-PTFE membranes with and without early exposure during the healing period. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1994; 14: 166-180.