The effect of bacterial cellulose membrane compared with collagen membrane on guided bone regeneration

Abstract

Purpose: This study was to evaluate the effects of bacterial cellulose (BC) membranes as a barrier membrane on guided bone regeneration (GBR) in comparison with those of the resorbable collagen membranes.

Materials and methods: BC membranes were fabricated using biomimetic technology. Surface properties were analyzed, Mechanical properties were measured, in vitro cell proliferation test were performed with NIH3T3 cells and in vivo study were performed with rat calvarial defect and histomorphometric analysis was done. The Mann-Whitney U test and the Wilcoxon signed rank test was used (α<.05).

Results: BC membrane showed significantly higher mechanical properties such as wet tensile strength than collagen membrane and represented a three-dimensional multilayered structure cross-linked by nano-fibers with 60 % porosity. In vitro study, cell adhesion and proliferation were observed on BC membrane. However, morphology of the cells was found to be less differentiated, and the cell proliferation rate was lower than those of the cells on collagen membrane. In vivo study, the grafted BC membrane did not induce inflammatory response, and maintained adequate space for bone regeneration. An amount of new bone formation in defect region loaded with BC membrane was significantly similar to that of collagen membrane application.

Conclusion: BC membrane has potential to be used as a barrier membrane, and efficacy of the membrane on GBR is comparable to that of collagen membrane.

Keywords: Bacterial cellulose membrane; Collagen membrane; Guided bone regeneration; Rat calvarial defect.

Fig. 1. In vivo operation procedure full-thickness rat calvarial defects. (A, B) In the middle of cranium, 8 mm-diameter defect was created with a trephine bur. (C) The defect site treated with bone graft material and (D) enclosed with barrier membrane (Collagen membrane (GENOSS, Suwon, Korea) or bacterial cellulose membrane (Jadam Co. Jeju, South Korea)).

Fig. 2. SEM micrographs of (A, C) collagen membrane and (B, D) bacterial cellulose membrane. The (A, B) surface side and (C, D) cross-section side showed nano porous structure (original magnification: ×3,000 [(A), (B)], ×1,000 [(C), (D)]).

Fig. 3. Mechanical properties (A) tensile stress, (B) tensile strain and (C) Young's modulus diagram of collagen membranes and BC membrane after 10 minutes soaking in water.

Fig. 4. Proliferation of NIH3T3 cells cultured on BC and collagen membrane prepared at various fluorescence as quantified by a CCK-8 assay at 1, 3 and 7 days.

Fig. 5. Immunofluorescent staining image of the adherent cells on (A, B) collagen membrane, and (C, D) BC membrane after 7 days measured by a confocal microscope (original magnification: ×200 [(A), (C)], ×400 [(B)].

Fig. 6. SEM image of the adherent cells on (A) collagen membrane (B) BC membrane after 7 days (original magnification: ×2,000 [(A), (B)]).

Fig. 7. H&E staining of histological sections of defect sites at 4 weeks after surgery. New bone formation and fibrous connective tissue were observed in the collagen group (A, C, E) and in the BC group (B, D, F). The membrane was not absorbed. The rectangles in (A, B, C, D) indicate the new bone formation. white arrow: mesenchymal cell; black asterisk: blood vessel; yellow asterisk: osteoid; yellow arrow: osteoblast; green arrow: osteocyte within a lacuna; (original magnification: ×12.5 [(A), (B)], ×100 [(C), (D)], ×400 [(E), (F)]).

Fig. 8. H&E staining of histological sections of defect sites at 8 weeks after surgery. New bone formation and fibrous connective tissue were observed in the collagen group (A, C, E) and in the BC group (B, D, F). The membrane was not absorbed. The rectangles in (A, B, C, D) indicate the new bone formation. white arrow: mesenchymal cell; black asterisk: blood vessel; yellow asterisk: osteoid; yellow arrow: osteoblast; green arrow: osteocyte within a lacuna. (original magnification: ×12.5 [(A), (B)], ×100 [(C), (D)], ×400 [(E), (F)]).