Comparison of bioabsorbable and non-resorbable membranes in the treatment of dehiscence-type defects. A histomorphometric study in dogs

Abstract

Background: The goal of this investigation was to compare, histologically and histometrically, the healing process of dehiscence-type defects treated by guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with bioabsorbable polylactic acid (PLA) membranes and non-resorbable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTF) membranes.

Methods: Six mongrel dogs were used. Buccal osseous dehiscences were surgically created on the distal roots of the mandibular third and fourth premolars. The defects were exposed to plaque accumulation for 3 months. After this period, the defects were randomly assigned to one of the treatments: GTR with bioabsorbable membrane (PLA), GTR with non-resorbable membrane (ePTFE), open flap debridement (OFD), and non-treated control (NTC). After 3 months of healing, the dogs were sacrificed and the blocks were processed. The histometric parameters evaluated included: gingival recession, epithelial length, connective tissue adaptation, new cementum, and new bone area.

Results: A superior length of new cementum was observed in the sites treated by GTR, regardless of the type of barrier used, in comparison with OFD (P <0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between PLA and ePTFE in any of the parameters with the exception of bone area. PLA presented a greater bone area when compared to ePTFE, OFD, and NTC (P <0.05).

Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, it can be concluded that both barriers are equally effective for new cementum formation. The bioabsorbable membrane may provide a greater bone area than the non-resorbable membrane.