Dentin-Derived-Barrier Membrane in Guided Bone Regeneration: A Case Report

Abstract

An autogenous, demineralized, dentin matrix is a well-known osteo-inductive bone substitute that is mostly composed of type I collagen and is widely used in implant dentistry. This single case report describes a successful outcome in guided bone regeneration and dental implantation with a novel human-derived collagen membrane. The authors fabricated a dentin-derived-barrier membrane from a block-type autogenous demineralized dentin matrix to overcome the mechanical instability of the collagen membrane. The dentin-derived-barrier acted as an osteo-inductive collagen membrane with mechanical and clot stabilities, and it replaced the osteo-genetic function of the periosteum. Further research involving large numbers of patients should be conducted to evaluate bone forming capacity in comparison with other collagen membranes.

Demineralized Dentin Matrix for Dental and Alveolar Bone Tissues Regeneration: An Innovative Scope Review

“…Root-shaped prepared from porcine deciduous incisors [ 18 , 28 , 30 , 34 ] were also prepared with the following sets of dimensions: 10 mm length and 1.0 mm thickness [ 18 ], 10 mm length and 3–5 mm diameter [ 28 , 30 ], 2 mm length and 1 mm diameter [ 28 ] or in 9.4 mm length with 4.9 mm upper diameter and 3.4 mm bottom diameter [ 34 ], and in addition, tubes of 8 mm length were prepared from rat incisors [ 84 ]. Barrier membrane size was 300–800 µm thick slice with 0.2–0.3 mm diameter holes [ 46 ] or it was produced in the form of semi-rigid cubic shape with 2 mm × 2 mm × 8 mm [ 64 ]. Finally, the DDM was also manufactured to be press-fitted to the premolar furcation defect with a 2-mm diameter scaffold [ 31 ].…”

“…Dentin tubes obtained from rat incisors were demineralized with 0.6 N HCl for 3 h [ 84 ]. Human-derived barrier membranes were demineralized with 0.6 N HCl [ 46 ]. Scaffolds prepared to be press-fitted into dogs' furcation perforation were demineralized with 17%, 10%, 5% for 5 min, 5 min, 10 min [ 31 ], respectively.…”

“…Sterilization was performed by maintaining the matrices in sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) with 100 units/ml of penicillin and 100 μg/ml of streptomycin at 37 °C, for 72 h and then washed in sterilized deionized water for 5 min [ 17 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 28 , 30 – 36 , 38 – 44 ], socking into penicillin and streptomycin [ 72 ] only, preservation in 5% peracetic acid and 75% ethanol for 10 min [ 53 , 80 , 81 ], immersion in 5 ml alcohol/2 ml of gentamicin [ 61 , 69 – 71 ], rinsing with sterile saline for 10 min [ 75 ], washing in sterilized deionized water for 10 min [ 82 ], rinsing twice in 0.1 M Tris-HCl (pH 7.4) for 10 min [ 55 , 62 ] and using gradient ethanol concentrations [ 47 ]. Other methods of sterilization were gamma irradiation processing using Cobalt 60 radiation with a dose of 5 kGy [ 66 ], ethylene oxide gas sterilization at low temperatures [ 19 , 45 , 49 , 52 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 67 , 68 , 76 ], steam sterilization at 121°C and a pressure of 1 bar for 15 min [ 23 ], lyophilization and freeze-drying [ 46 ], or mixing was accomplished in a sterile container [ 65 ]. The matrices were preserved in α-MEM media containing 50 units/ml of penicillin and 50 μg/ml of streptomycin or in 0.1 x PBS and kept in refrigerator at 4 °C [ 18 , 20 , 24 , 27 , 28 , 30 – 32 , 34 , 36 , 39 – 42 , 44 , 47 ] cryopreserved at -196°C ...…”

“…The matrices were preserved in α-MEM media containing 50 units/ml of penicillin and 50 μg/ml of streptomycin or in 0.1 x PBS and kept in refrigerator at 4 °C [ 18 , 20 , 24 , 27 , 28 , 30 – 32 , 34 , 36 , 39 – 42 , 44 , 47 ] cryopreserved at -196°C [ 38 ], −80 °C [ 26 ], −18 °C [ 83 ], and -20°C [ 25 ] or stored at room temperature [ 45 , 52 , 65 ]. Other methods of preservation included syringes for hydrogel [ 21 ], package for barrier membranes [ 46 ] and particles [ 58 – 60 ], or freshly prepared during operation [ 53 , 55 , 63 ]. In addition, slices were stored at 2°C until implantation [ 61 , 69 – 71 ].…”

“…In addition, slices were stored at 2°C until implantation [ 61 , 69 – 71 ]. Outcome The TDM/DDM were considered for osteogenic differentiation [ 39 , 49 , 50 ] and bone/guided bone regeneration [ 45 , 46 , 49 , 51 , 53 , 55 – 62 , 66 , 69 – 71 , 80 – 82 , 84 ], odontogenic differentiation [ 17 , 40 ], and dentin-pulp tissue regeneration [ 25 , 38 ] (Fig. 7 ), bio-root regeneration [ 18 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 34 ], tooth tissue remodeling and regeneration [ 30 ], socket preservation and alveolar ridge augmentation [ 52 , 55 , 73 , 76 , 82 ], periodontal tissue regeneration [ 32 , 64 , 78 ], furcation perforation repair [ 31 ] and alveolar bone defect regeneration [ 57 ], osteoclastogenesis and osteoclastic resorption [ 28 ], and maxillary sinus augmentation [ 55 , 77 ] (Fig.…”