DOI:

10.37988/1811-153X_2024_2_130

Comparative analysis of biodegradation and biocompatibility of various forms of collagen materials based on dermal collagen after submucosal implantation in the oral cavity of laboratory animals

Authors

  • E.Yu. Diachkova 1, PhD in Medical Sciences, associate professor of the Surgical dentistry Department
    ORCID: 0000-0003-4388-8911
  • M.M. Petukhova 1, research intern at the Surgical dentistry Department, 4th year student at the Institute of Dentistry
    ORCID: 0000-0002-2071-4487
  • I.A. Demyanenko 2, PhD in Biology, research fellow at the Laboratory of effectors and mediators of immunity
    ORCID: 0000-0002-8238-7100
  • N.V. Kalmykova 2, PhD in Biology, junior research fellow at the Laboratory of effectors and mediators of immunity
    ORCID: 0000-0001-9075-3361
  • A.L. Fayzullin 1, PhD in Medical Sciences, head of the Digital microscopic analysis Lab at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine
    ORCID: 0000-0003-4137-8993
  • 1 Sechenov University, 119991, Moscow, Russia
  • 2 N.F. Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology, 123098, Moscow, Russia

Abstract

The aim of this work was to analyze the effectiveness, biodegradation and biocompatibility of the dental material Matriflex (Biopharmaholding, Russia) in various versions (Fibro, Direct and Correct) in the context of the imported effect of Mucoderm (Botiss biomaterials, Germany) widely used in clinical practice during submucosal implantation, into the oral cavity of rabbits in the area of operational access.
Materials and methods.
In 6 animals, 4 pockets were intraoperatively formed in maxilla area, into which restrictive membranes were placed. Animals were removed from the experiment on the 14th and 90th days after surgery. In the area of implantation, dense soft tissue was measured with a dental micrometer before surgery, as well as on the 14th and 90th days after surgery. To assess biodegradation and biocompatibility, histological examination of tissues in the regions of implantation was carried out. Tissue evaluation on histological preparations wass carried out using optical microscopy, conducting semi-quantative analysis of signs of inflammation and regeneration.
Results.
All studied materials caused an increase in the volume of soft tissue in the area of their implantation. Augmentation effect during implantation of Fibro and Direct was constant both on the 14th and 90th days. At the same time, Correct and Mucoderm were characterized with the presence of positive dynamics in the increase in the volume of soft tissues on the 14th and 90th days, with a convergence of the values of the measured indicator. According to histological examination, all collagen membranes undervent complete or almost complete biodegradation by the 90th day after surgery. Biodegradation was accompained by formation in the field of implantation of autologous newly formed connective tissue. On the 14th day, a greater degree of neoangiogenesis was revealed in the area of implantation of Correct and Mucoderm compared to Fibro and Direct. On the 90th day, a greater maturity of autologous connective tissue was observed in the area of implantation of Fibro and Direct membranes, compared to Correct and Mucoderm. Also, on the 14th day of the experiment, the presence of more pronounced signs of inflammation was revealed in the area of implantation of Correct and Mucoderm membranes. On the 90th day, there were no signs of presense of inflammation in all groups.
Conclusion.
The results of the study confirm the ability of dental materials based on dermal collagen to effectively utilize the volume of soft tissue in the oral cavity. All collagen membranes studied provide good or complete biodegradation within 90 days after implantation and are biocompatible. Matriflex materials may be preferred for clinical use.

Key words:

dental materials, oral mucosa, defect, implantation into tissue, collagen membrane

For Citation

[1]
Diachkova E.Yu., Petukhova M.M., Demyanenko I.A., Kalmykova N.V., Fayzullin A.L. Comparative analysis of biodegradation and biocompatibility of various forms of collagen materials based on dermal collagen after submucosal implantation in the oral cavity of laboratory animals. Clinical Dentistry (Russia).  2024; 27 (2): 130—139. DOI: 10.37988/1811-153X_2024_2_130

References

  1. Toledano M., Toledano-Osorio M., Carrasco-Carmona Á., Vallecillo C., Lynch C.D., Osorio M.T., Osorio R. State of the art on biomaterials for soft tissue augmentation in the oral cavity. Part I: Natural polymers-based biomaterials. Polymers (Basel). 2020; 12 (8): 1850. PMID: 32824697
  2. Vallecillo C., Toledano-Osorio M., Vallecillo-Rivas M., Toledano M., Rodriguez-Archilla A., Osorio R. Collagen matrix vs. autogenous connective tissue graft for soft tissue augmentation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Polymers (Basel). 2021; 13 (11): 1810. PMID: 34072698
  3. Wolff J., Farré-Guasch E., Sándor G.K., Gibbs S., Jager D.J., Forouzanfar T. Soft tissue augmentation techniques and materials used in the oral cavity: An overview. Implant Dent. 2016; 25 (3): 427—34. PMID: 26840271
  4. Tarasenko S.V., Blagushina N.A. Experimental histological evaluation of bioresorbable collagen membrane use in surgical oral mucosal defects. Medical Newsletter of Vyatka. 2022; 1 (73): 67—75 (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 48112438
  5. Preidl R.H.M., Reichert S., Coronel T.V., Kesting M., Wehrhan F., Schmitt C.M. Free gingival graft and collagen matrix revascularization in an enoral open wound situation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021; 79 (5): 1027—1037. PMID: 33450192
  6. Diachkova E.Yu., Tarasenko S.V., Dydykin S.S. Surgical treatment of patients with perforated chronic maxillary sinusitis using different forms of collagen-based xenogenic material. Medical News of North Caucasus. 2019; 4: 628—630 (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 42351288
  7. Melezhechkina I.A., Atrushkevich V.G., Berchenko G.N. Comparative morphological assessment of crosslinked and non-crosslinked xenograft biointegration quality. Parodontologiya. 2022; 4: 288—297 (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 50006336
  8. Tarasenko S., Ashurko I., Taschieri S., Repina S., Esaya N A., Corbella S. Comparative analysis of methods to increase the amount of keratinized mucosa before stage-two surgery: a randomized controlled study. Quintessence Int. 2020; 51 (5): 374—387. PMID: 32159530
  9. Rachkov A.A., Shevela T.L., Evtuhov V.L. Specific features of using barrier membranes in conditions of microbial contamination of surgical wounds in oral cavity. Dentist (Minsk). 2018; 2 (29): 87—89 (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 35167008
  10. Rothamel D., Benner M., Fienitz T., Happe A., Kreppel M., Nickenig H.J., Zöller J.E. Biodegradation pattern and tissue integration of native and cross-linked porcine collagen soft tissue augmentation matrices — an experimental study in the rat. Head Face Med. 2014; 10: 10. PMID: 24670219
  11. Barbeck M., Lorenz J., Kubesch A., Böhm N., Booms P., Choukroun J., Sader R., Kirkpatrick C.J., Ghanaati S. Porcine dermis-derived collagen membranes induce implantation bed vascularization via multinucleated giant cells: A physiological reaction? — J Oral Implantol. 2015; 41 (6): e238—51. PMID: 25546240
  12. Khan R., Khan M.H. Use of collagen as a biomaterial: An update. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2013; 17 (4): 539—42. PMID: 24174741
  13. Lissek M., Boeker M., Happe A. How thick is the oral mucosa around implants after augmentation with different materials: A systematic review of the effectiveness of substitute matrices in comparison to connective tissue grafts. Int J Mol Sci. 2020; 21 (14): 5043. PMID: 32708901
  14. Cairo F., Barbato L., Selvaggi F., Baielli M.G., Piattelli A., Chambrone L. Surgical procedures for soft tissue augmentation at implant sites. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 21 (6): 1262—1270. PMID: 31729830
  15. Vincent-Bugnas S., Borie G., Charbit Y. Treatment of multiple maxillary adjacent class I and II gingival recessions with modified coronally advanced tunnel and a new xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018; 30 (2): 89—95. PMID: 28901687
  16. Puisys A., Zukauskas S., Kubilius R., Barbeck M., Razukevičius D., Linkevičiene L., Linkevičius T. Clinical and histologic evaluations of porcine-derived collagen matrix membrane used for vertical soft tissue augmentation: A case series. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2019; 39 (3): 341—347. PMID: 30986283
  17. Neto A.M.D., Sartoretto S.C., Duarte I.M., Resende R.F.B., Neves Novellino Alves A.T., Mourão C.F.A.B., Calasans-Maia J., Montemezzi P., Tristão G.C., Calasans-Maia M.D. In vivo comparative evaluation of biocompatibility and biodegradation of bovine and porcine collagen membranes. Membranes (Basel). 2020; 10 (12): 423. PMID: 33333940
  18. Guo S., Dipietro L.A. Factors affecting wound healing. J Dent Res. 2010; 89 (3): 219—29. PMID: 20139336
  19. Sela M.N., Babitski E., Steinberg D., Kohavi D., Rosen G. Degradation of collagen-guided tissue regeneration membranes by proteolytic enzymes of Porphyromonas gingivalis and its inhibition by antibacterial agents. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20 (5): 496—502. PMID: 19302237
  20. Lazarevic M., Petrovic S., Pierfelice T.V., Ignjatovic N., Piattelli A., Vlajic Tovilovic T., Radunovic M. Antimicrobial and osteogenic effects of collagen membrane decorated with chitosan-nano-hydroxyapatite. Biomolecules. 2023; 13 (4): 579. PMID: 37189328

Received

December 30, 2023

Accepted

May 18, 2024

Published on

June 28, 2024