Literature DB >> 12211492

Permeability of Streptococcus mutans and Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans Through guided tissue regeneration membranes and their effects on attachment of periodontal ligament cells.

Shan-Ling Hung1, Yi-Wen Lin, Yi-Hui Wang, Yen-Ting Chen, Cheng-Yao Su, Li-Jane Ling.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Microbial colonization on barrier materials used in guided tissue regeneration (GTR) may adversely affect treatment outcomes. The purposes of this study were: 1) to compare the invasion of Streptococcus mutans and Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans through 3 GTR membranes, composed of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE; non-resorbable), a glycolide fiber composite, and type I collagen (both bioabsorbable), and 2) to explore the effects of bacteria on the attachment of periodontal ligament (PDL) fibroblasts onto these membranes.
METHODS: Bacterial permeability was analyzed using a tube capped with a GTR membrane as a septum and filled with media. The tube was then placed in a bigger tube inoculated with S. mutans or A. actinomycetemcomitans. The passage of bacteria through the membranes into the inner tube was monitored. For cellular attachment experiments, primary human PDL cells were placed onto the GTR membranes with or without bacteria. Attached cells were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis.
RESULTS: The ePTFE membrane had the best barrier effects followed by the collagen membrane and then the glycolide fiber composite membrane. Moreover, S. mutans passed through these membranes faster than A. actinomycetemcomitans. The attachment of PDL cells on the 3 membranes was also varied. The ePTFE membrane was the worst substrate for PDL fibroblast attachment. Moreover, both bacteria influenced the cellular attachment on the GTR membranes.
CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the behavior of 3 GTR membranes penetrated by S. mutans and A. actinomycetemcomitans were demonstrated. The results suggest that attachment of PDL cells was affected on bacterial-contaminated GTR membranes, which may alter healing following membrane exposure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12211492     DOI: 10.1902/jop.2002.73.8.843

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Periodontol        ISSN: 0022-3492            Impact factor:   6.993


  5 in total

1.  Efficacy of Natural and Allopathic Antimicrobial Agents Incorporated onto Guided Tissue Regeneration Membrane Against Periodontal Pathogens: An in vitro Study.

Authors:  Neha Mehrotra; Ajay Reddy Palle; Rajani Kumar Gedela; Sanjay Vasudevan
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-01-01

2.  Permeability of P. gingivalis or its metabolic products through collagen and dPTFE membranes and their effects on the viability of osteoblast-like cells: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Giuseppina Nocca; Pierfrancesco Filetici; Francesca Bugli; Alvaro Mordente; Antonio D'Addona; Leonardo Dassatti
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2022-03-30       Impact factor: 2.885

3.  In-vitro antibiofilm activity of chlorhexidine digluconate on polylactide-based and collagen-based membranes.

Authors:  Jan-Luca Rudolf; Corina Moser; Anton Sculean; Sigrun Eick
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2019-12-26       Impact factor: 2.757

4.  Biocompatibility and cytotoxic evaluation of drug-loaded biodegradable guided tissue regeneration membranes.

Authors:  Nebu G Thomas; George P Sanil; Rajmohan Gopimohan; Jayachandran V Prabhakaran; George Thomas; Amulya K Panda
Journal:  J Indian Soc Periodontol       Date:  2012-10

5.  Asymmetric Collagen/chitosan Membrane Containing Minocycline-loaded Chitosan Nanoparticles for Guided Bone Regeneration.

Authors:  Shiqing Ma; Aidina Adayi; Zihao Liu; Meng Li; Mingyao Wu; Linghao Xiao; Yingchun Sun; Qing Cai; Xiaoping Yang; Xu Zhang; Ping Gao
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-08-22       Impact factor: 4.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.