Bone density of defects treated with lyophilized amniotic membrane versus collagen membrane: a tomographic and histomorfogenic study in rabbit´s femur

Liz Katty Ríos; Carlos Vladimir Espinoza; Marco Alarcón; Jorge Omar Huamaní

doi:10.17126/joralres.2014.036

Liz Katty Ríos Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia.
Carlos Vladimir Espinoza Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia.
Marco Alarcón Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia.
Jorge Omar Huamaní Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2014.036

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the bone density of bone defects treated with lyophilizated amniotic membrane (LAM) and collagen Membrane (CM), at 3 and 5 weeks. Two bone defects of 4 mm in diameter and 6 mm deep were created in left distal femoral diaphysis of New Zealand rabbits (n = 12). The animals were randomly divided into 2 groups. One of the defects was covered with lyophilized amniotic membrane (Rosa Chambergo Tissue Bank/National Institute of Child Health-IPEN, Lima, Peru) or collagen Membrane (Dentium Co, Seoul, Korea). The second was left uncovered (NC). The rabbits were killed after 3 and 5 weeks (3 rabbits/period). The results showed a high bone density and repair of the defect by new bone. The tomographic study revealed that the bone density of the defects treated with LAM at 3 weeks was equivalent to the density obtained with CM and higher density compared with NC (p <0.05). At 5 weeks, the bone density obtained with LAM was more than density CM and NC (p <0.05). The histomorphometric study showed no significant differences between LAM and CM at 3 and 5 weeks (p> 0.05). The results show that lyophilizated amniotic membrane provides bone density equal or higher to the collagen membrane.

Keywords: amniotic membrane dressings, bone regeneration, Cone-Beam, Dental Implant, biological dressing.

Densidad ósea de defectos tratados con membrana amniótica lifilizada versus membrana de colágeno: Un estudio tomográfico e histomorfogénico en fémur de conejo.

El propósito de este estudio fue comparar la densidad ósea (DO) de defectos óseos tratados con membrana amniótica liofilizada (MAL) y membrana de colágeno (MC), a las 3 y 5 semanas. Se crearon dos defectos óseos, de 4 mm de diámetro y 6 mm de profundidad, en la diáfisis femoral distal izquierda de conejos Nueva Zelanda (n=12). Los animales fueron divididos aleatoriamente en 2 grupos. Uno de los defectos fue cubierto con membrana amniótica liofilizada (Banco de tejidos Rosa Chambergo/INSN-IPEN, Lima, Perú) o membrana de colágeno (Dentium Co, Seoul, Korea). El segundo se dejó sin cubrir (NC). Los conejos fueron sacrificados después de 3 y 5 semanas (3 conejos/periodo). Los resultados mostraron una alta DO y reparación del defecto por hueso neoformado. El estudio tomográfico reveló que la DO de los defectos tratados con MAL a las 3 semanas fue comparable a la densidad obtenida con MC y mayor comparado con la densidad de NC (p<0,05); mientras que a las 5 semanas fue mayor a la densidad de MC y NC (p<0,05). El estudio histomorfométrico no mostró diferencias significativas entre MAL y MC a las 3 y 5 semanas (p>0,05). Los resultados muestran que la membrana amniótica liofilizada brinda densidad ósea comparable o mayor que la membrana de colágeno.

Palabras claves: Apósito de membrana amniótica, regeneración ósea, Cone Beam, implante dental, apósito biológico.

Author Biography

Liz Katty Ríos, Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia.

Editor de Journal of Oral Research.

Asesor en Metodología de la Investigación.

References

1. Catanzaro SA. Possibility to reinforce bone repair with decalcified dentin matrix. In: Gesellschaft für orale Implantologie (eds). Jahrbuch für orale Implantologie. Berlin: Quintessenz 1993; 33–4.
2. Hämmerle CHF, Schmid J, Olah AJ, Lang NP. Osseous healing of experimentally created defects in the calvaria of rabbits using guided bone regneration. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:144–7.
3. Hämmerle CHF, Schmid J, Lang NP, Olah AJ. Temporal dynamics of healing in rabbit cranial defects using guided bone regeneration. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995;53:167–74.
4. Nyman R, Magnusson M, Sennerby L, Nyman S, Lundgren D. Membrane-guided bone regeneration: Segmental radius defects studied in the rabbit. Acta Orthop Scand 1995;66:169–73.
5. Mermet I, Pottier N, Sainthillier JM, Malugani C, Cairey-Remonnay S, Maddens S, Riethmuller D, Tiberghien P, Humbert P, Aubin F. Use of amniotic membrane transplantation in the treatment of venous leg ulcers. Wound Repair Regen 2007; 15: 459–64.
6. Gomes JA, Romano A, Santos MS, Dua HS. Amniotic membrane use in ophthalmology. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2005; 16: 233–40.
7. Trelford JD, Trelford-Sauder M. The amnion in surgery, past and present. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979; 134: 833–45.
8. Parolini O, Soncini M. Human placenta: a source of progenitor/ stem cells?. J Reproduktionsmed Endokrinol 2006; 3: 117–25.
9. Parolini O, Alviano F, Bagnara GP, Bilic G, Bühring HJ, Evangelista M, Hennerbichler S, Liu B, Magatti M, Mao N, Miki T, Marongiu F, Nakajima H, Nikaido T, Portmann-Lanz CB, Sankar V, Soncini M, Stadler G, Surbek D, Takahashi TA, Redl H, Sakuragawa N, Wolbank S, Zeisberger S, Zisch A, Strom SC. Concise review: isolation and characterization of cells from human term placenta: outcome of the first international Workshop on Placenta Derived Stem Cells. Stem Cells 2008; 26: 300–11.
10. Insausti CL, Blanquer M, Bleda P, Iniesta P, Majado MJ, Castellanos G, Moraleda JM. The amniotic membrane as a source of stem cells. Histol Histopathol 2010; 25: 91–8.
11. Koizumi NJ, Inatomi TJ, Sotozono CJ, Fullwood NJ, Quantock AJ, Kinoshita S. Growth factor mRNA and protein in preserved human amniotic membrane. Curr Eye Res 2000; 20: 173–7.
12. Carmagnola D, Abati S, Celestino S, Chiapasco M, Bosshardt D, Lang NP. Oral implants placed in bone defects treated with Bio-Osss, Ostims-Paste or PerioGlas: an experimental study in the rabbit tibiae. Clin Oral Impl Res 2008;19:1246–53.
13. Grimard B, Hoidal M, Mills M, Mellonig J, Nummikoski J, Mealey B. Comparison of clinical, periapical radiograph, and cone-beam volume tomography measurement techniques for assessing bone level changes following regenerative periodontal therapy. J Periodontol 2009; 80:48-55.
14. Misch K, Yi E, Sarment D. Accuracy of Cone Beam Computed Tomography for Periodontal Defect Measurements. J Periodontol 2006;77:1261-6.
15. Kehl M, Swierkot K, Mengel R. Three-Dimensional Measurement of Bone Loss at Implants in Patients With Periodontal Disease. J Periodontol 2011;82:689-99.
16. Tseng SC. Suppression of transforming growth factor-beta isoforms, TGF-beta receptor type II, and myofibroblast differentiation in cultured human corneal and limbal fibroblasts by amniotic membrane matrix. J Cell Physiol 1999; 179(3): 325-35.
17. Rinastit M, Santoso A, Sosroseno W. Histological evaluation of rabbit gingival wound healing transplanted with human amniotic membrane. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 35(3):247-51.
18. Vilela M, Teixera R, Rangel D, Niccoli-Filho W, Gomes M. Homogenous amniotic membrane as a biological dressing for oral mucositis in rats: histomorphometric analysis. Arch Oral Biol 2008; 53(2):1163-71.
19. Kesting M, Loeffelbein DJ, Classen M, Slotta-Huspenina J, Hasler RJ, Jacobsen F, Kreutzer K, Al-Benna S, Wolff KD, Steinstraesser L. Repair of oronasal fistulas with human amniotic membrane in minipigs. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 48(2): 131-5.
20. Velez I, Parker W, Siegel M, Hernandez M. Cryopreserved Amniotic Membrane for Modulation of Periodontal Soft Tissue Healing: A Pilot Study. J Periodontol 2010; 81:1797-1804.
21. Aguirre P, Ogrodnik M, Zarate H, Silva S, Azocar M, Hitschfeld M. Use of amniotic membrane in ophthalmology surgery, first cases. Comisión Chilena de Energía Nuclear 2007; 26: 1-8.