Comparative study of nonabsorbable and absorbable barrier membranes in periodontal osseous defects by guided tissue regeneration

Kaushal, Shalini; Kumar, Avadhesh; Khan, MA; Lal, Nand

doi:10.1016/j.jobcr.2015.12.001

Cited by 23 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From the first GTR procedures described in the 1950s to nowadays, a need to find the ideal biomaterial for each case has existed; from a small periodontal regeneration where simple resorbable membrane are used, to vast defects where a titanium mesh should be placed ( 1 , 3 , 4 ). Today, the use of a resorbable membrane is extended in the clinical practice compared to the non-resorbable membranes such as expanded polytetrafluorethylene membrane (ePTFE) ( 5 , 6 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the search of the ideal barrier membrane for guided bone regeneration

Caballé‐Serrano¹,

Munar-Frau²,

Ortiz-Puigpelat³

et al. 2018

J Clin Exp Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundGBRs are essential procedures in implant dentistry and periodontology where barrier membranes play an important role by isolating soft tissue and allowing bone to grow. Not all membranes function the same way, as they differ from their origin and structure, it is important to understand how membranes behave and differ one from others in order to achieve a predictable treatment.Material and MethodsA systematic search on Medline by two independent reviewers was performed for articles published until July 2017 reporting the characteristics or properties of barrier membranes. The question that preceded the search was designed according to PICO rules.ResultsA total of 124 articles were initially identified from electronic searching. After abstract/full-text review, 21 were included for a systematic review. According to the extracted data and article analysis, barrier membranes should fulfill the following criteria in order to success: biocompatibility, space maintaining, occlusive function, easy - handling and a bioactivation friendly property. With the development of new biomaterials and surfaces, a great advance in this area is expected.ConclusionsIt has been clearly described that biocompatibility is the most important requirement to take into account when choosing a membrane, but other factors such as space maintaining capacity, cell oclusiveness, easy handling and bioactivation friendly materials are the ones that will fulfill our necessities. Key words:Barrier membrane, guided bone regeneration, dental implantology, oral surgery, collagen membrane, biomaterial.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the search of the ideal barrier membrane for guided bone regeneration

Caballé‐Serrano¹,

Munar-Frau²,

Ortiz-Puigpelat³

et al. 2018

J Clin Exp Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, we have for some materials the proof of principle, through histological studies, that true periodontal regeneration can occur. This is the case for demineralized freeze‐dried bone allograft (DFDBA; Bowers et al., ) and bovine‐derived bone xenograft (BDX; Mellonig, ), among BS, and for other biomaterials, for example, enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) (in periodontal defects Mellonig, ; Yukna & Mellonig, ; Esposito, Grusovin, Coulthard, & Worthington, ), or different types of membranes (Kaushal, Kumar, Khan, & Lal, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addition of enamel matrix derivatives to bone substitutes for the treatment of intrabony defects: A systematic review, meta‐analysis and trial sequential analysis

Troiano

Laino

Zhurakivska

et al. 2017

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, it was reported that it acts as a good vehicle to transport different types of cells where total resorption provides a space for complete graft remodeling and bone tissue regeneration . The collagen membranes were used to protect the cells within the vehicle material in the early phases of periodontal healing in order to provide the best circumstances for regeneration . It is assumed that autologous gingival fibroblasts and their associated GMSC derived from gingival tissue are more superior and applicable option than that of allogeneic cell lines that was reported to be immunologically rejected by the recipient …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regenerative potential of cultured gingival fibroblasts in treatment of periodontal intrabony defects (randomized clinical and biochemical trial)

Abdal‐Wahab

Abdel-Ghaffar

Ezzatt

et al. 2020

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Defective cellular elements constitute an important challenge to achieve predictable periodontal regeneration. In an attempt to improve the cellularity of periodontal defects, gingival fibroblasts were implanted without their associated extracellular elements in periodontal defects to expose them to periodontal tissue mediators. In order to investigate the regenerative potential of gingival fibroblasts translocated into periodontal defects, the present study was designed to clinically and biochemically investigate the use of gingival fibroblasts (GF) and their associated mesenchymal stem cells (GMSC) in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects. Methods:A total of 20 subjects were randomly divided into two groups (n = 20).Group I: ten patients were included with ten intrabony periodontal defects that received β-calcium triphosphate (β-TCP) followed by collagen membrane defect coverage, while group II: (10 patients) ten periodontal defects received cultured gingival fibroblasts (GF) on the β-TCP scaffold and covered by a collagen membrane. The clinical evaluation was carried out at the beginning and at 6 months. Gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) samples were collected directly from the test sites for the quantitative measurement of PDGF-BB and BMP-2 using the ELISA kit at 1, 7, 14, and 21 days after surgery.

show abstract

Comparative study of nonabsorbable and absorbable barrier membranes in periodontal osseous defects by guided tissue regeneration

Abstract: Both nonabsorbable and absorbable barrier membranes were equally effective in treating grade II buccal furcation defects in lower molars when used in conjunction with G-Graft except with respect to horizontal bone fill in which absorbable barrier membrane showed better results.

Cited by 23 publications

References 18 publications

On the search of the ideal barrier membrane for guided bone regeneration

On the search of the ideal barrier membrane for guided bone regeneration

Addition of enamel matrix derivatives to bone substitutes for the treatment of intrabony defects: A systematic review, meta‐analysis and trial sequential analysis

Regenerative potential of cultured gingival fibroblasts in treatment of periodontal intrabony defects (randomized clinical and biochemical trial)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About