Polyurethane and PTFE membranes for guided bone regeneration: Histopathological and ultrastructural evaluation

Monteiro, Adriana Socorro Ferreira; Macedo, Luís Guilherme Scavone de; Macedo, Nelson Luiz de; Balducci, Ivan

doi:10.4317/medoral.15.e401

Cited by 31 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(26 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Non-resorbable d-PTFE membranes feature pores 0.2 mm in diameter that prevent bacterial infiltration and, even if the membrane is exposed, the risk of complications and infections is much lower than with e-PTFE membranes. This makes primary soft tissue closure important but no strictly needed because the membrane suffices as an impenetrable barrier to food and bacteria (26). In our case, a d-PTFE membrane was not removed after its exposure.…”

Section: Figure 16mentioning

confidence: 89%

MANAGEMENT OF THE EXPOSURE OF A DENSE PTFE (d-PTFE) MEMBRANE IN GUIDED BONE REGENERATION (GBR): A CASE REPORT

Ghensi

Stablum²,

Bettio

et al. 2017

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYGuided bone regeneration (GBR) is a well-established and generally predictable method for repairing alveolar ridge defects and preparing edentulous sites for implant placement. Standard GBR involves filling the space underneath a membrane with autogenous bone or a mixture composed of autogenous bone particles and allogeneic bone tissue or heterologous biomaterials. The use of a barrier membrane for GBR has sometimes been associated with complications, however -reportedly involving exposure, infection, and collapse -and the non-resorbable types of membrane seem to be involved more often than the resorbable solutions. Such complications may be severe enough to defeat the object of the GBR procedure. A non-resorbable high-density polytetrafluoroethylene (d-PTFE) membrane has recently been designed specifically for use in bone-augmentation procedures that seems to assure a good bone regeneration process even when the membrane is exposed to the oral cavity. This case report describes an exposure of a d-PTFE membrane occurring after a maxillary GBR procedure and how it was overcome successfully, enabling implants insertion.

show abstract

Section: Figure 16mentioning

confidence: 89%

MANAGEMENT OF THE EXPOSURE OF A DENSE PTFE (d-PTFE) MEMBRANE IN GUIDED BONE REGENERATION (GBR): A CASE REPORT

Ghensi

Stablum²,

Bettio

et al. 2017

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are many polymers used in dentistry, such as silicone, polyurethane and methyl methacrylate. The vegetable polyurethane, which combines the versatility of polymer formulation with the global concern of new biomaterials production with sustainable resources, has become one of the most studied biomaterials [1,2] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This biopolymer has high capacity for interaction with human body cells in addition to not causing rejection. The success of the biopolymer can be explained by its compatibility with the human body [2,[4][5][6] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polyurethane derived from Ricinus Communis as graft for bone defect treatments

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…& Com. Plasticos, São Paulo, SP), with 0.13 mm thickness, presents characteristics and biocompatibility appropriate to be applied as an inflammatory reaction standard material of comparison with the material tests (19)(20). Preoperatively, the animals were weighed and sedated with analgesic-sedative and muscle-relaxing (0.1mL/100g) Rompum (2% aqueous solution of 2-(2,6-xilidine)-5,6-dihydro-4H-1,3 thiazin, Bayer, Brazil) five minutes before administration of general anesthesia (0.5mL/100g) Dopalen (ketamine hydrochloride, Agribrands do Brasil Ltda, Brazil).…”

Section: -Microscopic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At this step, a 40X objective (A-Plan, Carl Zeiss, Gottingen, Germany) and an ocular 10X (W-PI, Carl Zeiss, Gottingen, Germany) of an optical microscope (Axioskop 40, Carl Zeiss, Gottingen, Germany) were used. Histomorphometric analysis was performed to find out qualitative parameters of the inflammatory reaction (19). A blind study was conducted to measure the tissue outcome in the area using scores, observing the presence of neutrophils, lymphocytes, plasmocytes, eosinophils, macrophages.…”

Section: -Histomorphometric Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatibility of a chlorhexidine local delivery system in a subcutaneous mouse model

Monteiro¹,

Macedo²,

Macedo³

et al. 2011

Med Oral

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study aimed evaluating histologically and histomorphometrically the response of the conjunctive tissue face to the implant of chlorhexidine chips in the subcutaneous tissues of rats. Study Design: In this research 35 male rats Wistar were used to analyze the biocompatibility and the degradation process of chlorhexidine chip. In each animal, it was made 2 incisions for subcutaneous implantation of chlorhexidine chip (test group) and a polytetrafluorethylene membrane (control group). The morphological changes in subcutaneous implantations were assessed after 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 21 days. The data were submitted to Friedman nonparametric test to analyze the comparisons among observation periods and to allow the comparison among groups. Results: Differences were found in the analysis of the inflammatory response when comparing the tested materials (p values ≤ 0.05). In test group was observed hemorrhage, edema and intense inflammatory infiltrate predominantly neutrophilic around material. From 3-day and subsequent periods was verified granulation tissue externally at this infiltrate. From 10-day on was observed crescent area of degradation of chlorhexidine chip, associated with neutrophilic and macrophagic infiltrate, that maintained until 21-day. In the control group, moderate inflammatory infiltrate was observed initially, predominantly polymorphonuclear, edema and granulation tissue 3-day period. The inflammatory infiltrate was gradually replaced for granulation tissue, culminating in a fibrous capsule. Giant multinucleate cells situated at contact interface with the coating was examined since 3-day and persisted until 21-day. Conclusion: The chlorhexidine chip induces an intense acute inflammatory response at subcutaneous tissue of rats. Therefore, at conditions of this study was not biocompatible.

show abstract

Polyurethane and PTFE membranes for guided bone regeneration: Histopathological and ultrastructural evaluation

Cited by 31 publications

References 20 publications

MANAGEMENT OF THE EXPOSURE OF A DENSE PTFE (d-PTFE) MEMBRANE IN GUIDED BONE REGENERATION (GBR): A CASE REPORT

MANAGEMENT OF THE EXPOSURE OF A DENSE PTFE (d-PTFE) MEMBRANE IN GUIDED BONE REGENERATION (GBR): A CASE REPORT

Polyurethane derived from Ricinus Communis as graft for bone defect treatments

Biocompatibility of a chlorhexidine local delivery system in a subcutaneous mouse model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About