Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Hard and soft tissue changes after guided bone regeneration using two different barrier membranes: an experimental in vivo investigation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To assess the contour and volumetric changes of hard and soft tissues after guided bone regeneration (GBR) using two types of barrier membranes together with a xenogeneic bone substitute in dehiscence-type defects around dental implants.

Material and methods

In 8 Beagle dogs, after tooth extraction, two-wall chronified bone defects were developed. Then, implants were placed with a buccal dehiscence defect that was treated with GBR using randomly: (i) deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) covered by a synthetic polylactic membrane (test group), (ii) DBBM plus a porcine natural collagen membrane (positive control) and (iii) defect only covered by the synthetic membrane (negative control group). Outcomes were evaluated at 4 and 12 weeks. Micro-CT was used to evaluate the hard tissue volumetric changes and STL files from digitized cast models were used to measure the soft tissues contour linear changes.

Results

Test and positive control groups were superior in terms of volume gain and contour changes when compared with the negative control. Soft tissue changes showed at 4 weeks statistically significant superiority for test and positive control groups compared with negative control. After 12 weeks, the results were superior for test and positive control groups but not statistically significant, although, with a lesser magnitude, the negative control group exhibited gains in both, soft and hard tissues.

Conclusions

Both types of membranes (collagen and synthetic) attained similar outcomes, in terms of hard tissue volume gain and soft tissue contours when used in combination with DBBM

Clinical relevance

Synthetic membranes were a valid alternative to the “gold standard” natural collagen membrane for treating dehiscence-type defects around dental implants when used with a xenogeneic bone substitute scaffold

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hammerle CHF, Tarnow D (2018) The etiology of hard and soft tissue deficiencies at dental implants: a narrative review. J Clin Periodontol 45(Suppl 20):S267–S277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Araujo MG, Lindhe J (2005) Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 32:212–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tan WL, Wong TLT, Wong MCM, Lang NP (2012) A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 23(Suppl. 5):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Moraschini V, Poubel LC, Ferreira V, dos Sp Barboza E (2015) Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44:377–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Caneva M, Salata LA, de Souza SS, Baffone G, Lang NP, Botticelli D (2010) Influence of implant positioning in extraction sockets on osseointegration: histomorphometric analyses in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:43–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M (2005) Influence of 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 25:113–119

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Benic GI, Hämmerle CHF (2014) Horizontal bone augmentation by means of guided bone regeneration. Periodontol 66:13–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sanz-Sánchez I, Carrillo de Albornoz A, Figuero E, Schwarz F, Jung R, Sanz M, Thoma D (2018) Effects of lateral bone augmentation procedures on peri-implant health or disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 29(Suppl. 15):18–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sanz M, Dahlin C, Apatzidou D et al (2019) Biomaterials and regenerative technologies used in bone regeneration in the craniomaxillofacial region: consensus report of group 2 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration. J Clin Periodontol 46(Suppl. 21):82–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Haugen HJ, Lyngstadaas SP, Rossi F, Perale G (2019) Bone grafts: which is the ideal biomaterial? J Clin Periodontol 46(Suppl. 21):92–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sanz M, Vignoletti F (2015) Key aspects on the use of bone substitutes for bone regeneration of edentulous ridges. Dent Mater 31:640–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Thoma DS, Bienz SP, Figuero E, Jung RE, Sanz-Martín I (2019) Efficacy of lateral bone augmentation performed simultaneously with dental implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 46(Suppl. 21):257–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dahlin C, Linde A, Gottlow J, Nyman S (1988) Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration. Plast Reconstr Surg 81:672–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Omar O, Elgali I, Dahlin C, Thomsen P (2019) Barrier membranes: more than the barrier effect? J Clin Periodontol 46(Suppl. 21):103–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zitzmann NU, Naef R, Scharer P (1997) Resorbable versus nonresorbable membranes in combination with Bio-Oss for guided bone regeneration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12(6):844–852

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Simion M, Baldoni M, Rossi P, Zaffe D (1994) A comparative study of the effectiveness of e-PTFE membranes with and without early exposure during the healing period. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 14:167–180

    Google Scholar 

  17. Schwarz F, Rothamel D, Herten M, Sager M, Becker J (2006) Angiogenesis pattern of native and cross-linked collagen membranes: an immunohistochemical study in the rat. Clin Oral Implants Res 17:403–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schwarz F, Rothamel D, Herten M, Sager M, Ferrari D, Becker J (2008) Immunohistochemical characterization of guided bone regeneration at dehiscence-type defect using different barrier membranes: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:402–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Sager M, Herten M, Becker J (2005) Biodegradation of differently cross-linked collagen membranes: an experimental study in the rat. Clin Oral Implants Res 16:369–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gentile P, Chiono V, Tonda-Turo C, Ferreira AM, Ciardelli G (2011) Polymeric membranes for guided bone regeneration. Biotechnol J 6(10):1187–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gottlow J, Laurell L, Lundgren D, Mathisen T, Nyman S, Rylander H, Bogentoff C (1994) Periodontal tissue response to a new bioresorbable guided tissue regeneration device: a longitudinal study in monkeys. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 14:437–449

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lundgren D, Laurell L, Gottlow J, Rylander H, Torbjörn M, Nyman S, Rask M (1995) The influence of the design of two different bioresorbable barriers on the results of guided tissue regeneration therapy. An intra-individual comparative study in the monkey. J Periodontol 66:605–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Matsumoto G, Hoshino J, Kinoshita Y, Sugita Y, Kubo K, Maeda H, Ikada Y, Kinoshita Y (2012) Alveolar bone regeneration using poly-(lactic acid-co-glycolic acid-co-e-caprolactone) porous membrane with collagen sponge containing basic fibroblast growth factor: an experimental study in the dog. J Biomater Appl 27(4):485–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Won JY, Park CY, Bae JH, Ahn G, Kim C, Lim DH, Cho DW, Yun WS, Shim JH (2016) Evaluation of 3D printed PCL/PLGA/-TCP versus collagen membranes for guided bone regeneration in a beagle implant model. Biomed Mater 11(5):055013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sanz-Martın I, Sailer I, Hammerle CHF, Thoma DS (2016) Soft tissue stability and volumetric changes after 5 years in pontic sites with or without soft tissue grafting: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 27:969–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sanz-Martin I, Ferrantino L, Vignoletti F, Nunez J, Baldini N, Duvina M, Alcaraz J, Sanz M (2017) Contour changes after guided bone regeneration of large non-contained mandibular buccal bone defects using deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a porcine-derived collagen membrane: an experimental in vivo investigation. Clin Oral Investig 22(3):1273–1283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sanz Martin I, Vignoletti F, Nuñez J, Permuy M, Muñoz F, Sanz-Esporrin J, Fierravanti L, Shapira L, Sanz M (2017) Hard and soft tissue integration of immediate and delayed implants with a modified coronal macro design: histological, micro CT and volumetric soft tissue changes from a pre-clinical in vivo study. J Clin Periodontol 44(8):842–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Basler T, Naenni N, Schneider D, Hammerle CHF, Jung R, Thoma DS (2018) Randomized controlled clinical study assessing two membranes for guided bone regeneration of peri-implant bone defects: 3-year results. Clin Oral Implants Res 29(5):499–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Di Raimondo R, Sanz-Esporrin J, Pla R, Sanz-Martin I, Luengo F, Vignoletti F, Nuñez J, Sanz M (2019) Alveolar crests contour changes after guided bone regeneration using different biomaterials: an experimental in vivo investigation. Clin Oral Investig. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03092-8

  30. Khobragade P, Jain A, Setlur Nagesh SV, Andreana S, Dziak R, Sunkara SK, Ionita CN (2015) Micro-computed tomography (CT) based assessment of dental regenerative therapy in the canine mandible model. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 17:9417

    Google Scholar 

  31. Baek YJ, Kim JH, Song JM, Zoon SY, Kim HS, Shin SH (2016) Chitin-fibroin-hydroxyapatite membrane for guided bone regeneration: micro-computed tomography evaluation in a rat model. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 38(1):14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Vignoletti F, Abrahamsson I (2012) Quality of reporting of experimental research in implant dentistry. Critical aspects in design, outcome assessment and model validation. J Clin Periodontol 39(Suppl. 12):6–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Song JM, Shin SH, Kim YD, Lee JY, Baek YJ, Yoon SY, Kim HS (2014) Comparative study of chitosan/fibroin–hydroxyapatite and collagen membranes for guided bone regeneration in rat calvarial defects: micro-computed tomography analysis. Int J Oral Sci 6(2):87–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sanz M, Ferrantino L, Vignoletti F, de Sanctis M, Berglundh T (2017) Guided bone regeneration of non-contained mandibular buccal bone defects using deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a collagen membrane: an experimental in vivo investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res 28:1466–1476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hoornaert A, d’Arros C, Heymann MF, Layrolle P (2016) Biocompatibility, resorption and biofunctionality of a new synthetic biodegradable membrane for guided bone regeneration. Biomed Mater 11(4):045012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lundgren D, Sennerby L, Falk H, Friberg B, Nyman S (1994) The use of a new bioresorbable barrier for guided bone regeneration in connection with implant installation. Case reports. Clin Oral Implants Res 5:177–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Thoma DS, Jung U-W, Park J-Y, Bienz SP, Husler J, Jung RE (2017) Bone augmentation at peri-implant dehiscence defects comparing a synthetic polyethylene glycol hydrogel matrix versus standard guided bone regeneration techniques. Clin Oral Implants Res 28:e76–e83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jung UW, Cha JK, Vignoletti F, Nunez J, Sanz J, Sanz M (2017) Simultaneous lateral bone augmentation and implant placement using a particulated synthetic bone substitute around chronic peri-implant dehiscence defects in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 44:1172–1180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Bienz SP, Jung RE, Sapata VM, Hammerle CHF, Husler J, Thoma DS (2017) Volumetric changes and peri-implant health at implant sites with or without soft tissue grafting in the esthetic zone, a retrospective case-control study with a 5-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 28:1459–1465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Antunes AA, Grossi-Oliveira GA, Martins-Neto EC, Almeida AL, Salata LA (2015) Treatment of circumferential defects with osseoconductive xenografts of different porosities: a histological, histometric, resonance frequency analysis, and micro-CT study in dogs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17(Suppl 1):e202–e220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sanz-Martin I, Permuy M, Vignoletti F, Nuñez J, Muñoz F, Sanz M (2018) A novel methodological approach using superimposed micro-CT and STL images to analyze hard and soft tissue volume in immediate and delayed implants with different cervical designs. Clin Oral Implants Res 29:986–995

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the support from Prof. Fernando Muñoz at the University of Santiago – Lugo Veterinary Hospital where the prophylometric measurements were carried out under his close supervision. We also acknowledge the support of the Biomaterials Group from Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya where the specimens were processed for micro-CT analysis.

Funding

This study was partially funded through a research contract between the Sunstar Group (Switzerland) and the University Complutense of Madrid.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Postgraduate Periodontology Clinic, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Riccardo Di Raimondo, Javier Sanz-Esporrín, Ignacio Sanz-Martin, Rafael Plá, Fernando Luengo, Fabio Vignoletti, Javier Nuñez & Mariano Sanz

  2. ETEP (Etiology and Therapy of Periodontal and Periimplant Diseases) Research Group, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Javier Sanz-Esporrín, Fabio Vignoletti & Mariano Sanz

Authors
  1. Riccardo Di Raimondo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Javier Sanz-Esporrín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ignacio Sanz-Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rafael Plá
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fernando Luengo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fabio Vignoletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Javier Nuñez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mariano Sanz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariano Sanz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The protocol of the study had been previously approved by the Regional Ethics Committee for Animal Research (EXP-20170327).

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary materials

Supplementary Fig. 1

Picture of a section of Micro-Ct where an increase in the buccal contour was observed at level of implant shoulder (H=0) (yellow line), although the first mineralized tissue to implant contact was in a more apical position (purple arrow). (PNG 5640 kb)

High Resolution Image (TIF 1308 kb)

ESM 1

(DOCX 23 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Di Raimondo, R., Sanz-Esporrín, J., Sanz-Martin, I. et al. Hard and soft tissue changes after guided bone regeneration using two different barrier membranes: an experimental in vivo investigation. Clin Oral Invest 25, 2213–2227 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03537-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03537-5

Keywords

MeSH terms

Search

Navigation