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
. 2023 Jan 17;16(3):904.
doi: 10.3390/ma16030904.

Differences in Mechanical and Physicochemical Properties of Several PTFE Membranes Used in Guided Bone Regeneration

Syed Saad Bin Qasim  1 , Adel A Al-Asfour  2 , Moosa Abuzayeda  3 , Ahmed M Mohamed  4 , Branko Trajkovski  5 , Colin Alexander Murray  6 , Gregor-Georg Zafiropoulos  2
Affiliations

Differences in Mechanical and Physicochemical Properties of Several PTFE Membranes Used in Guided Bone Regeneration

Syed Saad Bin Qasim et al. Materials (Basel). .

Abstract

Non-resorbable PTFE membranes are frequently used in dental-guided bone regeneration (GBR). However, there is a lack of detailed comparative studies that define variations among commonly used PTFE membranes in daily dental clinical practice. The aim of this study was to examine differences in physicochemical and mechanical properties of several recent commercial PTFE membranes for dental GBR (CytoplastTM TXT-200, permamem®, NeoGen®, Surgitime, OsseoGuard®-TXT, OsseoGuard®-NTXT). Such differences have been rarely recorded so far, which might be a reason for the varied clinical results. For that reason, we analyzed their surface architecture, chemical composition, tensile strength, Young's modulus, wettability, roughness, density, thickness and porosity. SEM revealed different microarchitectures among the non-textured membranes; the textured ones had hexagonal indentations and XPS indicated an identical spectral portfolio in all membranes. NeoGen® was determined to be the strongest and OsseoGuard®-TXT was the most elastic. Wettability and roughness were highest for Surgitime but lowest for OsseoGuard®-NTXT. Furthermore, permamem® was the thinnest and NeoGen® was identified as the thickest investigated GBR membrane. The defect volumes and defect volume ratio (%) varied significantly, indicating that permamem® had the least imperfect structure, followed by NeoGen® and then Cytoplast TM TXT-200. These differences may potentially affect the clinical outcomes of dental GBR procedures.

Keywords: PTFE membranes; computerized tomography/CT; guided bone regeneration/GBR; micro-CT; nano-CT; physicochemical properties; porosity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Branko Trajkovski is also an employee of botiss biomaterials GmbH.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
SEM images of the soft tissue-facing site of the non-textured PTFE.
Figure 2
Figure 2
SEM images of the textured PTFE membranes.
Figure 3
Figure 3
NeoGen® membrane. SEM images of the bone-facing site.
Figure 4
Figure 4
XPS spectra. (a) survey, (b) C1s, (c) F1s regions; TXT: textured; NTXT: non textured.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Nano-CT examination of the tested membranes. Representative axial sections from textured and non-textured membranes. (A) CytoplastTM TXT-200 textured membrane with hexagonal shaped indentations on the soft-tissue site and flap surface in the bone tissue site; (B) NeoGen®: the thickest non-textured membrane; (C) permamem®: the thinnest non-textured membrane.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Diagrammatic representation of the nano-CT obtained results. (A) Thickness; (B) Material Volime; (C) Defect Volume; (D) Defect Volume Ratio.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Omar O., Elgali I., Dahlin C., Thomsen P. Barrier membranes: More than the barrier effect? J. Clin. Periodontol. 2019;46:103–123. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13068. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Elgali I., Omar O., Dahlin C., Thomsen P. Guided bone regeneration: Materials and biological mechanisms revisited. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2017;125:315–337. doi: 10.1111/eos.12364. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Retzepi M., Donos N. Guided Bone Regeneration: Biological principle and therapeutic applications. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:567–576. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01922.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rathnayake N., Trajkovski B., Rahman B., Zafiropoulos G.G. Clinical applications and outcomes of non-resorbable polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membranes in guided bone regeneration: Review. J. Int. Dent. Med. Res. 2019;12:1626–1635.
    1. Caballé-Serrano J., Munar-Frau A., Delgado L., Pérez R., Hernández–Alfaro F. Physicochemical characterization of barrier membranes for bone regeneration. J. Mech. Beh. Biomed Mater. 2019;97:13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.04.053. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources