| Literature DB >> 35591440 |
Patrick Rider1,2, Željka Perić Kačarević1,2,3, Akiva Elad2, Daniel Rothamel4, Gerrit Sauer4, Fabien Bornert5, Peter Windisch6, Dávid Hangyási6, Balint Molnar6, Bernhard Hesse7, Frank Witte1.
Abstract
For the surgical technique of guided bone regeneration (GBR), the choice of available barrier membranes has until recently not included an option that is mechanically strong, durable, synthetic and resorbable. The most commonly used resorbable membranes are made from collagen, which are restricted in their mechanical strength. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the degradation and regeneration potential of a magnesium membrane compared to a collagen membrane. In eighteen beagle dogs, experimental bone defects were filled with bovine xenograft and covered with either a magnesium membrane or collagen membrane. The health status of the animals was regularly monitored and recorded. Following sacrifice, the hemimandibles were prepared for micro-CT (μ-CT) analysis. Complications during healing were observed in both groups, but ultimately, the regenerative outcome was similar between groups. The μ-CT parameters showed comparable results in both groups in terms of new bone formation at all four time points. In addition, the μ-CT analysis showed that the greatest degradation of the magnesium membranes occurred between 1 and 8 weeks and continued until week 16. The proportion of new bone within the defect site was similar for both treatment groups, indicating the potential for the magnesium membrane to be used as a viable alternative to collagen membranes. Overall, the new magnesium membrane is a functional and safe membrane for the treatment of defects according to the principles of GBR.Entities:
Keywords: GBR; NOVAMag membrane; healing; magnesium degradation; micro-CT; resorbable membrane
Year: 2022 PMID: 35591440 PMCID: PMC9099583 DOI: 10.3390/ma15093106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1(a) Pure magnesium membrane (NOVAMag® membrane, botiss biomaterials GmbH, Germany) used for GBR. (b) the magnesium membrane is positioned over the bony defect during the GBR procedure to provide a mechanical barrier between the soft and the hard tissues.
µCT volume measurements for GBR defects treated with either a magnesium membrane or collagen membrane.
| Week | Membrane | No. of Treated Defects | Volume | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Defect (TV) | New Bone (BV) | Soft Tissue | Void | BV/TV | |||
| (mm3) | (mm3) | (mm3) | (mm3) | ||||
| 1 | Magnesium | 12 | 76.92 ± 9.41 | 0.34 ± 0.30 | 46.21 ± 10.47 | 4.51 ± 3.19 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| Collagen | 12 | 80.15 ± 11.16 | 0.40 ± 0.30 | 51.20 ± 8.31 | 0.07 ± 0.07 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | |
| 8 | Magnesium | 12 | 59.93 ± 10.89 | 17.71 ± 4.34 | 30.02 ± 6.92 | 0.06 ± 0.10 | 0.30 ± 0.07 |
| Collagen | 12 | 74.73 ±9.73 | 19.65 ± 4.72 | 37.72 ± 6.62 | 0.08 ± 0.13 | 0.26 ± 0.05 | |
| 16 | Magnesium | 12 | 64.14 ± 8.85 | 25.93 ± 5.02 | 25.74 ± 6.49 | 0.05 ± 0.05 | 0.41 ± 0.09 |
| Collagen | 12 | 65.97 ± 7.57 | 22.63 ± 6.72 | 30.15 ± 8.75 | 0.06 ± 0.06 | 0.34 ± 0.10 | |
| 52 | Magnesium | 4 | 47.89 ± 5.94 | 29.17 ± 5.81 | 11.32 ± 6.63 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.62 ± 0.17 |
| Collagen | 4 | 62.31 ± 2.35 | 35.37 ± 2.88 | 15.42 ± 3.90 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.57 ± 0.05 | |
Figure 2Volumetric measurements of GBR defects treated with either a magnesium membrane (blue) or collagen membrane (red): (a) New Bone Volume/Total Defect Volume; (b) Soft Tissue Volume; (c) Void Space Volume. Standard deviation and statistical significance are shown. p ≤ 0.05 is represented by “*” and p ≤ 0.001 is represented by “***”.
Figure 3Reconstructed µCT images showing the residual metallic magnesium membrane (indicated in pink and blue magnesium salts). Only a minor amount of the metallic magnesium is left after 8 weeks and is completely corroded at 16 weeks (in 11/12 samples). At 52 weeks after implantation, no residual of the remaining magnesium membrane could be observed, whilst the surrounding bone of the defect has fully integrated bone substitute material.
Figure 4Box and whisker diagrams of (a) volume and (b) surface area measurements of the magnesium membrane remnants after implantation. Range and mean values are shown. Statistical significance is shown as p ≤ 0.05 represented by “*” and p ≤ 0.001 represented by “***”.
Figure 5Surgical placement of (a) magnesium membrane and (b) collagen membrane in a GBR model in the lower left jaw of beagle dogs. In both images, two treatment sites are visible.
Figure 6Representative images of the segmented magnesium metal membrane (pink) and virtual slices (gray) at the 1-week timepoint to illustrate the allocation of remnant metallic magnesium to gray values and image properties. Small gas cavities can be seen around the membrane, which are resultant from hydrogen gas development during the degradation process. Magnesium salts can also be seen retaining the shape and position of the membrane and are distinguished from the metallic magnesium using the employed segmentation technique within the AVIZO software (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA).