Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of experimental diabetes and membrane occlusiveness on guided bone regeneration: A proof of principle study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the effect of membrane occlusiveness and experimental diabetes on early and late healing following guided bone regeneration.

Material and Methods

A total of 30 Wistar rats were randomly allocated to three groups: healthy (H), uncontrolled diabetic (UD) and controlled diabetic (CD). A critical size calvarial defect (CSD) was created at the mid-portion of one parietal bone, and it was treated with a double layer of e-PTFE membrane presenting 0.5 mm perforations. The animals were killed at 7 and 30 days of healing, and qualitative and quantitative histological evaluations were performed. Data were compared with the ones previously obtained from other 30 animals (10H, 10UD, 10 CD), where two CSDs were randomly treated with a double-layer e-PTFE occlusive membrane or left empty.

Results

Following application of cell occlusive or cell permeable membranes, significant regeneration can be observed. However, at 30 days in the H group occlusive compared to cell permeable membranes promoted enhanced bone regeneration (83.9 ± 7.3% vs. 52.5 ± 8.6%), while no significant differences were observed within the CD and UD groups. UD led to reduced regeneration compared to H when an occlusive barrier was applied, whereas comparable outcomes to H and CD were observed when placing perforated membranes.

Conclusion

The application of cell permeable membranes may have masked the potentially adverse effect of experimental UD on bone regeneration.

Clinical relevance

Membrane porosity might contribute to modulate the bone regenerative response in UD conditions. Future studies are needed to establish the degree of porosity associated with the best regenerative outcomes as well as the underlying molecular mechanisms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Retzepi M, Donos N (2010) Guided Bone Regeneration: biological principle and therapeutic applications. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:567–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01922.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dahlin C, Linde A, Gottlow J, Nyman S (1988) Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration. Plast Reconstr Surg 81:672–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bosch C, Melsen B, Vargervik K (1995) Guided bone regeneration in calvarial bone defects using polytetrafluoroethylene membranes. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 32:311–317. https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(1995)032%3c0311:GBRICB%3e2.3.CO;2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Donos N, Lang NP, Karoussis IK, Bosshardt D, Tonetti M, Kostopoulos L (2004) Effect of GBR in combination with deproteinized bovine bone mineral and/or enamel matrix proteins on the healing of critical-size defects. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:101–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sanz M, Dahlin C, Apatzidou D, Artzi Z, Bozic D, Calciolari E, De Bruyn H, Dommisch H, Donos N, Eickholz P, Ellingsen JE, Haugen HJ, Herrera D, Lambert F, Layrolle P, Montero E, Mustafa K, Omar O, Schliephake H (2019) Biomaterials and regenerative technologies used in bone regeneration in the craniomaxillofacial region: Consensus report of group 2 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration. J Clin Periodontol 46(Suppl 21):82–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hutmacher DW (2000) Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials 21:2529–2543. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-9612(00)00121-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Elgali I, Omar O, Dahlin C, Thomsen P (2017) Guided bone regeneration: materials and biological mechanisms revisited. Eur J Oral Sci 125:315–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12364

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Dimitriou R, Mataliotakis GI, Calori GM, Giannoudis PV (2012) The role of barrier membranes for guided bone regeneration and restoration of large bone defects: current experimental and clinical evidence. BMC Med 10:81. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-10-81

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Dahlin C, Gottlow J, Linde A, Nyman S (1990) Healing of maxillary and mandibular bone defects using a membrane technique. An experimental study in monkeys. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 24:13–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Retzepi M, Donos N (2010) The effect of diabetes mellitus on osseous healing. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:673–681. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01923.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Retzepi M, Lewis MP, Donos N (2010) Effect of diabetes and metabolic control on de novo bone formation following guided bone regeneration. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:71–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01805.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Retzepi M, Calciolari E, Wall I, Lewis MP, Donos N (2017) The effect of experimental diabetes and glycaemic control on guided bone regeneration: histology and gene expression analyses. Clin Oral Implants Res. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kalaitzoglou E, Popescu I, Bunn RC, Fowlkes JL, Thrailkill KM (2016) Effects of Type 1 Diabetes on Osteoblasts, Osteocytes, and Osteoclasts. Curr Osteoporos Rep 14:310–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-016-0329-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Camargo WA, de Vries R, van Luijk J, Hoekstra JW, Bronkhorst EM, Jansen JA, van den Beucken J (2017) Diabetes Mellitus and Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Animal Studies. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 23:471–479. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEB.2016.0370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kilkenny C, Browne W, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG, Group NCRRGW (2010) Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines. J Gene Med 12:561–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgm.1473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Follak N, Kloting I, Wolf E, Merk H (2004) Histomorphometric evaluation of the influence of the diabetic metabolic state on bone defect healing depending on the defect size in spontaneously diabetic BB/OK rats. Bone 35:144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2004.03.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vajgel A, Mardas N, Farias BC, Petrie A, Cimoes R, Donos N (2014) A systematic review on the critical size defect model. Clin Oral Implants Res 25:879–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Donos N (2000) Dereka X and Mardas N (2015) Experimental models for guided bone regeneration in healthy and medically compromised conditions. Periodontol 68:99–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zellin G, Linde A (1996) Effects of different osteopromotive membrane porosities on experimental bone neogenesis in rats. Biomaterials 17:695–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zellin G, Linde A (1999) Bone neogenesis in domes made of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene: efficacy of rhBMP-2 to enhance the amount of achievable bone in rats. Plast Reconstr Surg 103:1229–1237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Calciolari E, Mardas N, Dereka X, Kostomitsopoulos N, Petrie A, Donos N (2017) The effect of experimental osteoporosis on bone regeneration: Part 1, histology findings. Clin Oral Implants Res 28:e101–e110. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Calciolari E, Mardas N, Dereka X, Anagnostopoulos AK, Tsangaris GT, Donos N (2017) The effect of experimental osteoporosis on bone regeneration: part 2, proteomics results. Clin Oral Implants Res 28:e135–e145. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12950

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Calciolari E, Donos N, Mardas N (2017) Osteoporotic Animal Models of Bone Healing: Advantages and Pitfalls. J Invest Surg 30:342–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941939.2016.1241840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schenk RK, Buser D, Hardwick WR, Dahlin C (1994) Healing pattern of bone regeneration in membrane-protected defects: a histologic study in the canine mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 9:13–29

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hammerle CH, Schmid J, Lang NP, Olah AJ (1995) Temporal dynamics of healing in rabbit cranial defects using guided bone regeneration. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53:167–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Al-Kattan R, Retzepi M, Calciolari E, Donos N (2016) Microarray gene expression during early healing of GBR-treated calvarial critical size defects. Clin Oral Implants Res. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hobar PC, Schreiber JS, McCarthy JG, Thomas PA (1993) The role of the dura in cranial bone regeneration in the immature animal. Plast Reconstr Surg 92:405–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang J, Glimcher MJ (1999) Characterization of matrix-induced osteogenesis in rat calvarial bone defects: II. Origins of bone-forming cells. Calcif Tissue Int 65:486–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sandberg E, Dahlin C, Linde A (1993) Bone regeneration by the osteopromotion technique using bioabsorbable membranes: an experimental study in rats. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 51:1106–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lundgren A, Lundgren D, Taylor A (1998) Influence of barrier occlusiveness on guided bone augmentation. An experimental study in the rat. Clin Oral Implants Res 9:251–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Shim JH, Jeong JH, Won JY, Bae JH, Ahn G, Jeon H, Yun WS, Bae EB, Choi JW, Lee SH, Jeong CM, Chung HY, Huh JB (2017) Porosity effect of 3D-printed polycaprolactone membranes on calvarial defect model for guided bone regeneration. Biomed Mater 13:015014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-605X/aa9bbc

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Donos N, Graziani F, Mardas N, Kostopoulos L (2011) The use of human hypertrophic chondrocytes-derived extracellular matrix for the treatment of critical-size calvarial defects. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:1346–1353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02120.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mardas N, Kostopoulos L, Stavropoulos A, Karring T (2003) Evaluation of a cell-permeable barrier for guided tissue regeneration combined with demineralized bone matrix. Clin Oral Implants Res 14:812–818. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00966.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Follak N, Kloting I, Wolf E, Merk H (2004) Improving metabolic control reverses the histomorphometric and biomechanical abnormalities of an experimentally induced bone defect in spontaneously diabetic rats. Calcif Tissue Int 74:551–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-003-0069-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Maniatopoulos C, Sodek J, Melcher AH (1988) Bone formation in vitro by stromal cells obtained from bone marrow of young adult rats. Cell Tissue Res 254:317–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00225804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Owen M, Friedenstein AJ (1988) Stromal stem cells: marrow-derived osteogenic precursors. Ciba Found Symp 136:42–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470513637.ch4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Haynesworth SE, Baber MA, Caplan AI (1992) Cell surface antigens on human marrow-derived mesenchymal cells are detected by monoclonal antibodies. Bone 13:69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/8756-3282(92)90363-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kostopoulos L, Karring T (1995) Role of periosteum in the formation of jaw bone. An experiment in the rat. J Clin Periodontol 22:247–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.1995.tb00142.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Trueta J, Buhr AJ (1963) The Vascular Contribution to Osteogenesis. V. The Vasculature Supplying the Epiphysial Cartilage in Rachitic Rats. J Bone Joint Surg Br 45:572–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Collin-Osdoby P (1994) Role of vascular endothelial cells in bone biology. J Cell Biochem 55:304–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.240550306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Brighton CT, Lorich DG, Kupcha R, Reilly TM, Jones AR and Woodbury RA, 2nd (1992) The pericyte as a possible osteoblast progenitor cell. Clin Orthop Relat Res 275:287–299

  42. Campbell GM, Sophocleous A (2014) Quantitative analysis of bone and soft tissue by micro-computed tomography: applications to ex vivo and in vivo studies. Bonekey Rep 3:564. https://doi.org/10.1038/bonekey.2014.59

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Omar O, Elgali I, Dahlin C, Thomsen P (2019) Barrier membranes: More than the barrier effect? J Clin Periodontol 46(Suppl 21):103–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13068

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors declare they do not have any conflict of interest in relation to this project.

Funding

No funding was received in relation to this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Private Practice, Limassol, Cyprus

    E. Aristodemou

  2. Centre for Oral Clinical Research and Centre for Oral Immunobiology and Regenerative Medicine, Institute of Dentistry, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), London, UK

    M. Retzepi, E. Calciolari & N. Donos

  3. Dental School, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy

    E. Calciolari

Authors
  1. E. Aristodemou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Retzepi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Calciolari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. Donos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Donos.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

Ethical approval

The study was conducted in accordance with the Animals Scientific Procedures Act 1986, and approval was obtained from the Home Office (UK). Personal project licence (PPL) 70/6161.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Nikolaos Donos was the main responsible of study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by Maria Retzepi and Eleni Aristodemou. All authors participated to data analysis and interpretation. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Elena Calciolari, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aristodemou, E., Retzepi, M., Calciolari, E. et al. The effect of experimental diabetes and membrane occlusiveness on guided bone regeneration: A proof of principle study. Clin Oral Invest 26, 5223–5235 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04491-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04491-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation