Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the performance of natural latex membranes prepared with different procedures and PTFE membrane in guided bone regeneration (GBR) in rabbits

  • Published:
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This work assessed the performance of membranes made of natural latex extracted from Hevea brasiliensis prepared with three different methods: polymerized immediately after collection without the use of ammonia (L1); polymerized after preservation in ammonia solution (L2); and polymerized after storage in ammonia, followed by Soxhlet technique for the extraction of substances (L3). Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane was used as control. Two 10-mm diameter bone defects were surgically made in the calvaria of thirty adult male New Zealand rabbits. Defects (total n = 60) were treated with guided bone regeneration (GBR) using L1, L2, L3 or PTFE membranes (n = 15 for each membrane). Ten animals were euthanized after 7, 20 and 60 days postoperatively so that five samples (n = 5) of each treatment were collected at each time, and bone regeneration was assessed microscopically. The microscopic analysis revealed defects filled with blood clot and new bone formation at the margins of the defect in all 7-day samples, while 20-day defects were mainly filled with fibrous connective tissue. After 60 days defects covered with L1 membranes showed a significantly larger bone formation area in comparison to the other groups (P < 0.05, ANOVA, Tukey). Additionally, bone tissue hypersensitization for L1 and PTFE membranes was also investigated in six additional rabbits. The animals were subjected to the same surgical procedure for the confection of one 10-mm diameter bone defect that was treated with L1 (n = 3) or PTFE (n = 3). Fifty-three days later, a second surgery was performed to make a second defect, which was treated with the same type of membrane used in the first surgery. Seven days later, the animals were euthanized and samples analyzed. No differences among L1 and PTFE samples collected from sensitized and non-sensitized animals were found (P > 0.05, Kruskal–Wallis). Therefore, the results demonstrated that latex membranes presented performance comparable to PTFE membranes, and that L1 membranes induced higher bone formation. L1 and PTFE membranes produced no hypersensitization in the bone tissue.

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. Buser D. 20 years of guided bone regeneration in implant dentistry. 2nd ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dimitriou R, Jones E, McGonagle D, Giannoudis P. Bone regeneration: current concepts and future directions. BMC Med. 2011;9(1):66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferguson C, Alpern E, Miclau T, Helms JA. Does fracture repair recapitulate skeletal formation? Mech Dev. 1999;87(1–2):57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shapiro F. Bone development and its relation to fracture repair. The role of mesenchymal osteoblasts and surface osteoblasts. Eur. Cells Mater. 2008;15:53–76.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nyman S, Lindhe J, Karring T, Rylander H. New attachment following surgical treatment of human periodontal disease. J Clin Periodontol. 1982;9(4):290–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dahlin C, Linde A, Gottlow J, Nyman S. Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988;81(5):672–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nyman S. Bone regeneration using the principle of guided tissue regeneration. 1991;18(6):494–8.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Linde A, Alberius P, Dahlin C, Bjurstam K, Sundin Y. Osteopromotion: a soft-tissue exclusion principle using a membrane for bone healing and bone neogenesis. J Periodontol. 1993;64(11 Suppl):1116–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Buser D, Hirt HP, Schenk RK. Lateral ridge augmentation using autografts and barrier membranes: a clinical study with 40 partially edentulous patients. J Oral Maxillofax Surg. 1996;54(4):420–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Monteiro ASF, et al. Polyurethane and PTFE membranes for guided bone regeneration: histopatological and ustrastructural evaluation. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010;15(2):e401–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Retzepi M, Donos N. Guided bone regeneration: biological principles and therapeutic applications. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2010;21(6):567–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Balabanian CACA, Coutinho-Netto J, Lamano-Carvalho TL, Lacerda SA, Brentegani LG. Biocompatibility of natural latex implanted into dental alveolys of rats. J Oral Sci. 2006;48(4):201–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ereno C, Guimarães SAC, Pasetto S, Herculano RD, Silva CP, Graeff CFO, Tavanno O, Baffa O, Kinoshita A. Latex use as an occlusive membrane for guided bone regeneration. J Biomed Mat Res. 2010;95(3):932–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Floriano J, Mota L, Furtado E, Rossetto V, Graeff CO. Biocompatibility studies of natural rubber latex from different tree clones and collection methods. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2013;16(1):1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Andrade TA, et al. The inflammatory stimulus of a natural latex biomembrane improves healing in mice. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2011;44(10):1036–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mendonça RJ, Maurício VB, de Bortolli Teixeira L, Lachat JJ, Coutinho-Netto J. Increased vascular permeability, angiogenesis and wound healing induced by the serum of natural latex of the rubber tree Hevea brasiliensis. Phytother Res. 2010;24(5):764–8.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mengumpun K, et al. Hidrophobic allergens from the bottom fraction membrane of Hevea brasiliensis. Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol. 2008;26(2–3):129–36.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gawchik SM. Latex Allergy. Mt Sinai J Med. 2011;78(5):759–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Deval R, Ramesh V, Prasad G, Jain AK. Natural rubber latex allergy. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2008;74(4):304–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Janet CG, Barbee RW, Bielitzki JT, Clayton LA, Donovan JC, Hendriksen CFM, Kohn DF, Lipman NS, Locke PA, Melcher J, Quimby FW, Turner PV, Wood GA, Würbel H. Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. 8th ed. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Yaltirik M, Ozbas H, Bilgic B, Issever H. Reactions of connective tissue to mineral trioxide aggregate and amalgam. J Endod. 2004;30(2):95–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Internationale FD. Recommended Standard practices for biological evaluation of dental materials, Part 4. 11: subcutaneous implantation test. Int Dent J. 1980;30:173–4.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Marques L, Holgado LA, Simoes RD, Pereira JD, Floriano JF, Mota LS, Graeff CFO, Constantino CJL, Rodriguez-Perez MA, Matsumoto M, Kinoshita A. Subcutaneous tissue reaction and cytotoxicity of polyvinylidene fluoride and polyvinylidene-trifluoroethylene blends associated with natural polymers. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013;101(7):1284–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gomes-Filho JE, de Moraes Costa MT, Cintra LTÂ, Lodi CS, Duarte PCT, Okamoto R, et al. Evaluation of alveolar socket response to Angelus MTA and experimental light-cure MTA. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol. 2010;110(5):e93–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dahlin C, et al. Healing of maxillary and mandibular bone defects using a membrane technique. An experimental study in monkeys. Scand Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1990;24(1):13–9.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Brandão ML, CoutinhoNetto J, Thomazinin JA, Lachat JJ, Muglia VF, Piccinato CE. Prótese vascular derivada do látex. J Vasc Bras. 2007;6(2):130–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Talieri IC, et al. Enxerto de látex natural na cicatrização de esclerectomias lamelar e penetrante em coelhos. Ciência Rural Santa Maria. 2009;39(6):1815–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zimmerman M. Teste de biocompatibilidade e resistência de membranas de látex em cães. Ciência Rural Santa Maria. 2007;37(6):1719–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Herculano RD, Silva CP, Ereno C, Guimaraes SAC, Kinoshita A, Graeff CFO. Natural rubber latex used as drug delivery system in guided bone regeneration (GBR). Mater Res. 2009;12:253–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Herculano RD, Guimarães SAC, Belmonte GC, Duarte MAH, Oliveira Júnior ON, Kinoshita A, Graeff CFO. Metronidazole release using natural rubber latex as matrix. Mater Res. 2010;13:57–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Herculano RD, Alencar de Queiroz AA, Oliveira ON Jr, Graeff CFO. On the release of metronidazole from natural rubber latex membranes. Mater Sci Eng. 2011;31(2):272–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Frade MAC, Cursi IB, Andrade FF, Coutinho Netto J, Barbetta FM, Foss NT. Manegement of diabetic skin wounds with a natural latex biomembrane. Med Cutan Iber Lat Am. 2004;32(4):157–62.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sampaio RB, Mendonca RJ, Simioni AR, Costa RA, Siqueira RC, Correa VM, Tedesco AC, Haddad A, Coutinho Netto J, Jorge R. Rabbit retinal neovascularization induced by latex angiogenic-derived fraction: an experimental model. Curr Eye Res. 2010;35(1):56–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lindhe J, Karring T, Lang NP. Clinical periodontology and implant dentistry. 5th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ferreira M, Mendonça RJ, Coutinho-Netto J, Mulato M. Angiogenic properties of natural rubber latex biomembranes and the serum fraction of Hevea brasiliensis. Braz J Phys. 2009;39:564–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kaigler D, Silva E, Mooney DJ. Guided bone regeneration using injectable vascular endothelial growth factor delivery gel. J Periodontol. 2013;84(2):230–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gu Z, Xie H, Li L, Zhang X, Liu F, Yu X. Application of strontium-doped calcium polyphosphate scaffold on angiogenesis for bone tissue engineering. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2013;24(5):1251–60.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rippel MM, Leite CAP, Lee L-T, Galembeck F. Formation of calcium crystallites in dry natural rubber particles. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2005;288(2):449–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mrué F, et al. Evaluation of the biocompatibility of a new biomembrane. Mater Res. 2004;7(2):277–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Abbas AK, Lichtman AHH, Pillai S. Imunologia celular e molecular. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier Brasil; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gawchik SM. Latex Allergy. Mount Sinai J Med. 2011;78(5):759–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade Sagrado Coração, Rua Irmã Arminda 10-50, Bauru, SP, 17.011-160, Brazil

    Jonas M. L. Moura, Leonardo Marques, Leandro Holgado & Angela Kinoshita

  2. Faculdade de Ciências, UNESP, Av. Eng. Luiz Edmundo Carrijo Coube, 14-01, Bauru, 17033-360, SP, Brazil

    Juliana F. Ferreira & Carlos F. O. Graeff

Authors
  1. Jonas M. L. Moura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juliana F. Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leonardo Marques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Leandro Holgado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carlos F. O. Graeff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Angela Kinoshita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela Kinoshita.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moura, J.M.L., Ferreira, J.F., Marques, L. et al. Comparison of the performance of natural latex membranes prepared with different procedures and PTFE membrane in guided bone regeneration (GBR) in rabbits. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 25, 2111–2120 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-014-5241-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-014-5241-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation