Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec 7;16(1):35.
doi: 10.1186/s13005-020-00249-9.

A collagen membrane influences bone turnover marker in vivo after bone augmentation with xenogenic bone

Henning Staedt  1   2 , Michael Dau  3 , Eik Schiegnitz  4 , Daniel G E Thiem  4 , Olga Tagadiuc  5 , Victor Palarie  6 , Peter Ottl  2 , Bilal Al-Nawas  4 , Peer W Kämmerer  7
Affiliations

A collagen membrane influences bone turnover marker in vivo after bone augmentation with xenogenic bone

Henning Staedt et al. Head Face Med. .

Abstract

Background: The aim was to compare early biochemical and histological osseous healing of chronic mandibular defects regenerated with bovine bone substitute with and without collagen membrane in vivo.

Methods: Eight weeks after formation of a lateral full-thickness perforating bone defect in the mandible of 40 rabbits, bovine bone substitute with ("+";n = 20) and without ("-";n = 20) collagen membrane was applied. Blood and bone was collected 24, 72 h, 7, 14 and 21 days after surgery. Total acid phosphatase, bone acid phosphatase, total alkaline phosphatase and bone alkaline phosphatase activities were compared between groups. Formation of new bone was quantified histologically for all time points.

Results: Twenty-four hours after surgery, bone alkaline phosphatase was significantly elevated in "+" group when compared to "-" (p=0.012). After 72 hours, all bone turnover markers except for total acid phosphatase (p=0.078) where significantly elevated in "+" (all p < 0.05). Fourteen days after surgery, the significant highest values for all bone turnover markers were detected in "-" (all p < 0.05). A significant difference in favor of group "-" could also be detected after 3 weeks in terms of both acid phosphatases (p < 0.05). In histology, no significant differences could be detected.

Conclusion: Bone regeneration with bovine bone substitute material and collagen membrane shows a significantly earlier bone remodeling activity but does not seem to influence formation of new bone in histological samples.

Keywords: Animal study; Bone regeneration; Bone remodeling; Collagen; Membrane; Serological bone turnover markers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Bone defect in the rabbit mandible before bone grafting procedure
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Collection of peripheral blood from the ear vein of a rabbit
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Bar charts showing expression of all four bone remodeling markers after 72 h. Significant differences in favor of the group with collagen membrane were detected in case of bone acid phosphatase, as well as total and bone alkalic phosphatase (all p < 0.05)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Bar charts showing expression of all four bone remodeling markers after 2 weeks. Significant differences in favor of the non-collagen group were detected in case of all four bone remodeling markers (all p < 0.05)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Histology (toluidine blue, original magnification × 20) of a specimen (group with collagen membrane) after 7 days. No new bone formation can be seen. * = residual bone at the edge of the defect; + = bovine bone substitute particles
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Histology (toluidine blue, original magnification × 20) of a specimen (group with collagen membrane) after 14 days. New osseous growth coming from the residual bone onto the grafted material can be seen. * = residual bone at the edge of the defect; + = bovine bone substitute particles; − = new-formed bone growing from the residual bone
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Retzepi M, Donos N. Guided bone regeneration: biological principle and therapeutic applications. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(6):567–576. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01922.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Turri A, Elgali I, Vazirisani F, Johansson A, Emanuelsson L, Dahlin C, et al. Guided bone regeneration is promoted by the molecular events in the membrane compartment. Biomaterials. 2016;84:167–183. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.01.034. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kämmerer PW, Palarie V, Schiegnitz E, Nacu V, Draenert FG, Al-Nawas B. Influence of a collagen membrane and recombinant platelet-derived growth factor on vertical bone augmentation in implant-fixed deproteinized bovine bone--animal pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(11):1222–1230. - PubMed
    1. Hartmann A, Hildebrandt H, Schmohl JU, Kämmerer PW. Evaluation of risk parameters in bone regeneration using a customized titanium mesh: results of a clinical study. Implant Dent. 2019;28(6):543–550. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000933. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Machtei EE. The effect of membrane exposure on the outcome of regenerative procedures in humans: a meta-analysis. J Periodontol. 2001;72(4):512–516. doi: 10.1902/jop.2001.72.4.512. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources