ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIM: Results of Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) primarily depend on the membrane used. The aim of this study was to compare biocompatibility of different absorbable and non-absorbable membranes by using unrestricted somatic stem cells (USSCs) as an indicator for biocompatibility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five absorbable membranes (Bio-Gide®, RESODONT®, GENTA-FOIL resorb®, BioMend® and BioMend® Extend™) and one non-absorbable alternative (GORE-TEX®) were colonized with USSCs. After 24 h, 3 days and 7 days, cell proliferation, cell viability, and cytotoxicity were assessed. Moreover, cell morphology was evaluated by electron microscopy. RESULTS: Significantly higher cell proliferation and cell viability rates were observed in Bio-Gide® and RESODONT® membranes. Cell toxicity was highest on GENTA-FOIL resorb® membranes. The electron microscopical assessment showed a better cell attachment on porous surfaced membranes. CONCLUSION: This study shows that USSCs can be used for assessments of biocompatibility, and that absorbable membranes with collagenous composition and porous structure tend to positively impact biocompatibility and enhance cell proliferation.
Subject(s)
Adult Stem Cells/cytology , Adult Stem Cells/metabolism , Biocompatible Materials , Bone Regeneration , Membranes, Artificial , Biocompatible Materials/chemistry , Cell Proliferation , Cell SurvivalABSTRACT
AIM: The biocompatibility of human osteoblasts (HOB) and human unrestricted somatic stem cells (USSCs) with membranes (BioGide®, GORE-TEX®, GENTA-FOIL resorb®, RESODONT®, BioMend®, BioMend® Extend™) was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After osteogenic differentiation (dexamethasone, ascorbic acid and ß-glycerolphosphate) cells were seeded on membranes. On days 1, 3 and 7, attachment, proliferation, cell vitality, cytotoxicty and cell morphology were analyzed. RESULTS: Cells on BioGide® and RESODONT® exhibited significantly higher attachment (p<0.005) and proliferation (p<0.005). On BioMend® cells showed a significantly higher attachment compared to BioMend® Extend™ (p<0.005), whereas on BioMend® Extend™ cells had significantly higher proliferation (p<0.005). The vitality of cells was significantly better on BioGide® and RESODONT® (p<0.005). There were no significant differences between USSCs and HOBs. Scanning electron microscopy confirmed these results. CONCLUSION: BioGide® and RESODONT® had the best biocompatibility and are appropriate membranes for use in stem cell-derived regeneration of bone.
