Volume 64 (2014) Issue: 2014 No#4

Comparison of resorbable membranes for guided bone regeneration of human and bovine origin

Author(s): Lazić Zoran, Bubalo Marija, Milović Radomir, Matijević Stevo, Magić Marko, Đorđević Igor

Keywords:bovine resorbable membrane, dog mandible defect, guided bone regeneration, human resorbable membrane, membrane thickness

The properties of membranes for guided bone regeneration have been described by a number of authors. These involve biocompatibility, appropriate barrier features (mechanical prevention of soft tissue proliferation), tissue integration, immunologic neutrality, preservation of the space for new alveolar bone, and simplicity of application. Such membrane must hold out against the masticatory forces and tissue tension of the flap, and prevent the collapse of soft tissues and wound space reduction. The property of integration into the tissue guarantees wound stabilization and inhibits epithelial migration. The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the influence of human resorbable demineralized membrane (RHDM) and bovine resorbable demineralized membrane (RBDM) on bone regeneration. The experiment, approved by the Ethical Committee, was performed on six dogs and conducted into three phases. Bone defects were created in all six dogs on the left side of the mandible, 8 weeks after extraction of the second, third and fourth premolar. One defect was covered with 200 µm thick RHDM, one with 200 µm thick RBDM, and the third defect was left empty (control defect). The pathohistological analysis was done two, four and six months after the surgery. In the third phase samples of bone tissue were taken and subjected to patohistological analysis. In all six dogs the defects treated with RHDM 200µm thick showed a higher level of bone regeneration in comparison with the defect treated with RBDM 200 µm thick and especially with the control defect. Our results demonstrated that the human membrane showed the least soft tissue ingrowth and promoted better bone formation at 6 months compared with a bovine one.

My account



ISSN: 0567-8315

eISSN: 1820-7448

Journal Impact Factor 2017: 0.604

5-Year Impact Factor: 0.439

Indexing: Thomson Reuters/Science Citation Index Expanded, Zoological Record, Biosis Previews, Web of Science, Journal Citation Reports, Google Scholar, SCIndeks, KoBSON, Genamics, Journal Seek, Research Gate, DOAJ, Journal Rate, SJR – SCImago Journal & Country Rank, WorldCat, Academic Journals Database, Medical Journals Links, MedSci, Pubget