| Literature DB >> 30970881 |
Xiaoyu Sun1,2, Chun Xu3, Gang Wu4, Qingsong Ye5, Changning Wang6.
Abstract
Periodontal tissue regeneration is the ultimate goal of the treatment for periodontitis-affected teeth. The success of regenerative modalities relies heavily on the utilization of appropriate biomaterials with specific properties. Poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), a synthetic aliphatic polyester, has been actively investigated for periodontal therapy due to its favorable mechanical properties, tunable degradation rates, and high biocompatibility. Despite the attractive characteristics, certain constraints associated with PLGA, in terms of its hydrophobicity and limited bioactivity, have led to the introduction of modification strategies that aimed to improve the biological performance of the polymer. Here, we summarize the features of the polymer and update views on progress of its applications as barrier membranes, bone grafts, and drug delivery carriers, which indicate that PLGA can be a good candidate material in the field of periodontal regenerative medicine.Entities:
Keywords: barrier membranes; bone grafts; drug delivery carriers; periodontal tissue regeneration; poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid)
Year: 2017 PMID: 30970881 PMCID: PMC6432161 DOI: 10.3390/polym9060189
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1A schematic illustration illustrating the normal periodontal tissues (A); injured periodontium in periodontitis (B); and forms of PLGA applied for periodontal regeneration process (C). In (C), PLGA membranes can inhibit the early down-growth of gingival epithelium and connective tissues, allowing regenerative cells to repopulate the denuded root surface; PLGA based scaffolds can provide initial mechanical support and three-dimensional niches for neo-tissue formation; PLGA based delivery carriers can release the biological factors, and antimicrobial drugs to enhance periodontal regeneration.
Figure 2Synthesis, chemical structure, formulation and degradation of PLGA.
Commercially available PLGA products for medical applications.
| Trade Name | Manufacturer | Composition (ratio) | Form | Degradation time | Biocompatibility and tissue response | Mechanical properties | Features |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vicryl-Netz | Ethicon | PLA/PGA 10/90 | Mesh | 4–12 weeks | Inert, lack of tissue integration, no reactions in the surrounding tissues | Semicrystalline, relatively soft | Well adaptable, easy handling, elimination of membrane removal |
| Resolut | W.L. Gore | PGA/PLGA | Mesh | 20–24 weeks | Good tissue integration, low inflammatory response in the surrounding tissues | Rigid, elastic | Retains its mechanical strength for 4 months to resist membrane collapse |
| Vicryl | Ethicon | PLA/PGA 8/92 | Mesh | 12 weeks | Good biocompatibility, limited inflammatory response | Semicrystalline, low elasticity, hold its tensile strength for 2–3 weeks in tissues | Easy to handle surgically |
| Suture | |||||||
| Polysorb | U.S. Surgical | PLA/PGA 80/20 | Mesh | 8–10 weeks | Minimal tissue reaction | High tensile strength, low elasticity | Easy handling |
| Suture | |||||||
| Dermagraft | ATS | PLA/PGA 10/90 | Mesh | 4 weeks | Good biocompatibility, limited immunological rejection, no inflammatory response | Great elasticity, porosity 95%, mechanical properties comparable to the native skin | Favorable for cell adherence |
| LactoSorb Screws and Plates | Walter Lorenz Surgical | PLA/PGA | Scaffold | 48 weeks | Well tolerated, induced bone formation without causing adverse tissue responses | High tensile strength and stiffness, retains 70% of original strength at 8 weeks | Plates can be heated and molded to shape multiple times without compromising their mechanical strength |
| Biologically Quiet | Instrument Makar | PLA/PGA 85/15 | Scaffold | 24 weeks | No abnormal tissue reactions | Rigid, high mechanical strength, even stronger than the metal screws | Easy handling, avoidance of reoperation to remove the implants |
| Fisiograft | Ghimas S.p.A | PLA/PGA | Sponge | 12–16 weeks | Biocompatible, totally absorbed in 3–4 months | Varies with different forms, mainly as bone filling materials | Osteoconductive, totally absorbable |
| Power | |||||||
| Gel | |||||||
| Lupron Depot | TAP | PLA/PGA 50/50 | Microparticle | 4 weeks | Minimal toxicity and minimal mechanical irritation to the surrounding tissues | Powders | Capable of delivering a sustained drug therapeutic level for 1 month |
| Zoladex | Astra-Zeneca | PLA/PLGA | Microparticle | 4 weeks | Good biocompatibility, nontoxicity in most tissues | Powders | Monthly subcutaneous injection, increase patient compliance |
| ReGel | Macro-Med | PLGA–PEG–PLGA | Hydrogel | 1–6 weeks | High biocompatibility | Some degree of flexibility | Compatible with tissues, ideally suited to deliver hydrophobic small molecules |
Application of PLGA membranes in periodontal defects treatment in big animal studies.
| References | Animal types | Defect types | Length months | Treatment groups | New cementum (mm) | New bone (mm) | Connective tissue adhesion (mm) | Junctional epithelium extension (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hurzeler et al., 1997 [ | rhesus monkeys | Intrabony defects | 5 | A flap operation only | 0.20 ± 0.39 | 0.19 ± 0.37 | 0.20 ± 0.39 | N |
| PLGA membrane | 2.74 ± 0.69 * | 2.64 ± 0.74 * | 2.80 ± 0.75 * | N | ||||
| Hurzeler et al., 1997 [ | rhesus monkeys | Class II furcation defects | 5 | A flap operation only | 0.83 ± 0.19 | 1.14 ± 0.35 | 0.92 ± 0.26 | N |
| PLGA membrane | 2.88 ± 0.63 * | 2.78 ± 0.53 * | 3.28 ± 0.55 * | N | ||||
| Chang et al., 2000 [ | dogs | Intrabony defects | 3 | PLGA membrane | 4.03 ± 0.16 | 1.78 ± 0.22 | N | 0.92 ± 0.11 |
| PLGA membrane loaded with 25% doxycycline | 3.89 ± 0.22 | 2.67 ± 0.30 * | N | 1.04 ± 0.12 | ||||
| Kurtis et al., 2002 [ | dogs | Intrabony defects | 2 | A flap operation only | 0.97 ± 0.04 | 0.62 ± 0.07 | 0.96 ± 0.02 | 2.28 ± 0.06 |
| PLGA membrane | 1.46 ± 0.09 * | 2.01 ± 0.08 * | 1.24 ± 0.02 * | 1.16 ± 0.10 * | ||||
| PLGA membrane Loaded with metronidazole | 1.53 ± 0.10 * | 2.05 ± 0.08 * | 1.20 ± 0.02 * | 1.13 ± 0.10 * | ||||
| Kim et al., 2007 [ | dogs | Intrabony defects | 2 | A flap operation only | 2.00 ± 0.70 | 1.46 ± 0.68 | 0.85 ± 0.43 | N |
| PLGA membrane | 3.16 ± 0.37 * | 2.39 ± 0.52 * | 0.69 ± 0.17 | N | ||||
| PLGA membraneLoaded with tetracycline | 3.72 ± 0.53 * | 2.88 ± 0.66 * | 0.64 ± 0.10 | N | ||||
| Reis et al., 2011 [ | dogs | Class II furcation defects | 4 | A flap operation only | N | trabeculaenumber = 1 | 3.80 ± 1.34 | N |
| PLGA membrane combined with CaP particles | N | trabeculaenumber ≈ 3 * | 1.80 ± 0.44 *,# | N |
N: These data were not available in this study. * Significant difference with other groups. # clinical attachment level instead of connect tissue adhesion was observed in this study.
Figure 3Clinical application of PLGA membranes for the treatment of intrabony defects. Adapted from [53,54] with permission. (A) shows the bone defect after implant placement and (B) shows the filling of bone substitute. A PLGA membrane was placed to cover the bone substitute and secured with two resorbable pins (C). After 6 months, the clinical examination after flap elevation shows the decrease of the defect height and integration of the implant (D) [54]. (E,F) show the clinical application PLGA membranes for Class II furcation defect, where reduction of furcation depth and gain in clinical attachment level can be observed [55].
Clinical results of PLGA membranes for periodontal regeneration.
| References | Patients number | Defect type (defect number) | Length (months) | Treatment groups | Pocket probing depth reduction (mm) | Clinical attachment level gain (mm) | Gingival margin recession change (mm) | Radiologic bone fill (mm) | Vertical/horizontal furcation depth reduction (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Becker et al., 1996 [ | 50 | class II furcation invasions/31 | 12 | PLGA membrane | 2.5 ± 1.4 | 2.1 ± 1.6 | −0.4 ± 1.0 | N | 1.8 ± 2.0 |
| Becker et al., 1996 [ | 50 | Intrabony defects/30 | 12 | PLGA membrane | 4.0 ± 1.5 | 2.9 ± 2.0 | 1.2 ± 1.6 | N | N |
| Bouchard et al., 1997 [ | 30 | class II furcation defects/30 | 12 | ePTFE membrane | 1.8 ± 0.3 | 1.2 ± 0.3 | N | N | 2.7 ± 0.3 |
| PLGA membrane | 2.1 ± 0.4 | 1.5 ± 0.5 | N | N | 2.5 ± 0.4 | ||||
| Tonetti et al., 1998 [ | 154 | Infrabony defects/154 | 12 | flap operation only | N | 2.18 ± 1.46 | N | N | N |
| PLGA membrane | N | 3.04 ± 1.64 * | N | N | N | ||||
| Mattson et al., 1999 [ | 19 | Infrabony defects/23 | 6 | collagen membrane | 1.66 ± 1.81 | 1.00 ± 1.82 | 0.66 ± 1.11 | 2.1 ± 2.18 | N |
| PLGA membrane | 2.61 ± 1.75 | 2.01 ± 1.87 | 0.60 ± 0.99 | 1.67 ± 2.10 | N | ||||
| PLGA membrane | 1.8 ± 1.3 | 1.4 ± 1.2 | N | N | N | ||||
| Stavropoulos et al., 2004 [ | 28 | Infrabony defects/28 | 12 | PLGA membrane + Bio-Oss | 4.0 ± 1.2 | 2.9 ± 2.3 | 1.1 ± 1.6 | N | N |
| collagen membrane + Bio-Oss | 5.1 ± 1.7 | 3.9 ± 1.3 | 1.2 ± 0.8 | N | N | ||||
| Aimetti et al., 2005 [ | 18 | Infrabony defects/36 | 12 | flap operation only | 2.39 ± 0.92 | 1.50 ± 0.99 | 0.89 ± 0.58 | 1.05 ± 0.94 | N |
| PLGA membrane | 3.44 ± 0.78 * | 2.89 ± 0.90 * | 0.56 ± 0.92 * | 2.13 ± 1.21 * | N | ||||
| Pretzl et al., 2009 [ | 12 | Infrabony defects/24 | 120 | ePTFE membrane | 2.4 ± 1.6 | −1.7 ± 1.3 | N | 0.8 ± 0.6 | N |
| PLGA membrane | 4.2 ± 2.5 | 0.2 ± 2.0 | N | 2.76 ± 1.70 | N | ||||
| Agarwal et al., 2012 [ | 12 | Infrabony defects/16 | 6 | bone allograft only | 2.00 ± 0.19 | 1.38 ± 0.1 | N | 0.63 ± 0.26 | N |
| bone allograft with PLGA membrane | 2.75 ± 0.37 | 1.50 ± 0.27 | N | 1.13 ± 0.23 | 1.37 ± 1.12 | ||||
| Balusubramanya et al., 2012 [ | 7 | class II furcation defects/22 | 6 | flap operation only | N | 1.09 ± 0.94 | N | N | 1.54 ± 1.04 * |
| PLGA membrane | N | 2.18 ± 0.6 * | N | N |
N: These data were not available in this study. * Significant difference with other group.
Figure 4Photos of PLGA membranes for the treatment of intrabony defects in dogs. Adapted from [49] with permission. (A) shows the one-wall intrabony defects treated with PLGA membranes. (B) shows the defect treated with PLGA membrane demonstrated dense connective tissue formation, a moderate increase of new bone and new cementum, and (C) shows the perpendicular arrangement of periodontal ligament fibers in the areas of new bone and new cementum regeneration.