EVALUATION OF THE OSTEOINDUCTIVE POTENTIAL OF FREEZE-DRIED HUMAN AMNIOTIC MEMBRANE (EXPERIMENTAL STUDY)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 BDS, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University

2 Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University.

3 Professor of Surgery, Vice Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Alexandria University

4 Lecturer of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Bone regeneration represents an important challenge in oral surgery. Several means have been employed to improve bone healing, each having several advantages and disadvantages. The search for new materials and methods is an ongoing process. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the bone inductive effect of the freeze-dried human amniotic membrane (FDAM) as a novel biomaterial for bone regeneration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve adult male dogs were involved in this study. Bilateral critical-sized mandibular defects were created in each dog. One defect was left uncovered as a control. The other defect was covered with a double layered sterile freeze-dried human amniotic membrane (FDAM) to serve as a study. At each of three time points - 4, 8, and 12 weeks - four dogs were euthanized and their mandibles were harvested en bloc and osteotomy sites were submitted for histochemical examination to evaluate bone healing. RESULTS: The tissue samples were obtained after 4, 8, and 12 weeks for histochemical examination. The FDAM was found to enhance the blood supply to the defect area in the study group and gave rise to bone induction (P ˂0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study findings indicate that the FDAM has the potential for the enhancement of bone healing and bone induction.

Keywords

References

1. McAllister BS, Haghighat K. Bone augmentation techniques. J Periodontol. 2007;78:377-96.
2. Gomes C, Paz A, Bonilla A, Corrêa A, Cavalcante R, Veiga D, et al. Bone regeneration in mandible defect with autograft bone and cell suspension from bone marrow in rabbits. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec. 2011;63:836-43.
3. Schmitz JP, Hollinger JO. The critical size defect as an experimental model for craniomaxillofacial nonunions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;205:299-308.
4. Hollinger JO, Kleinschmidt JC. The critical size defect as an experimental model to test bone repair materials. J Craniofac Surg. 1990;1:60-8.
5. Brierly G, Tredinnick S, Lynham A, Woodruff M. Critical Sized Mandibular Defect Regeneration in Preclinical In Vivo Models. Curr Mol Biol Rep. 2016;2:83-9.
6. Bak M, Jacobson AS, Buchbinder D, Urken ML. Contemporary reconstruction of the mandible. Oral Oncol. 2010;46:71-6.
7. Sokolsky-Papkov M, Agashi K, Olaye A, Shakesheff K, Domb AJ. Polymer carriers for drug delivery in tissue engineering. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2007;59:187-206.
8. Niknejad H, Deihim T, Solati-Hashjin M, Peirovi H. The effects of preservation procedures on amniotic membrane’s ability to serve as a substrate for cultivation of endothelial cells. Cryobiology. 2011;63:145-51.
9. Díaz-Prado S, Rendal-Vázquez ME, Muiños-López E, Hermida-Gómez T, Rodríguez-Cabarcos M, FuentesBoquete I, et al. Potential use of the human amniotic membrane as a scaffold in human articular cartilage repair. Cell Tissue Bank. 2010;11:183-95.
10.Dua HS, Gomes JA, King AJ, Maharajan VS. The amniotic membrane in ophthalmology. Surv Ophthalmol. 2004;49:51-77.
11.Hennerbichler S, Reichl B, Pleiner D, Gabriel C, Eibl J, Redl H. The influence of various storage conditions on cell viability in amniotic membrane. Cell Tissue Bank. 2007;8:1-8.
12.Shortt AJ, Secker GA, Lomas RJ, Wilshaw SP, Kearney JN, Tuft SJ, et al. The effect of amniotic membrane preparation method on its ability to serve as a substrate for the ex-vivo expansion of limbal epithelial cells. Biomaterials. 2009;30:1056-65.
13.Mamede A, Carvalho M, Abrantes A, Laranjo M, Maia C, Botelho M. Amniotic membrane: from structure and functions to clinical applications. Cell Tissue Res. 2012;349:447-58.
14.Ab Hamid SS, Zahari NK, Yusof N, Hassan A. Scanning electron microscopic assessment on surface morphology of preserved human amniotic membrane after gamma sterilisation. Cell Tissue Bank. 2014;15:15-24.
15.Kubo M, Sonoda Y, Muramatsu R, Usui M. Immunogenicity of human amniotic membrane in experimental xenotransplantation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:1539-46.
16.Samandari MH, Yaghmaei M, Ejlali M, Moshref M, Saffar AS. Use of amnion as a graft material in vestibuloplasty: a preliminary report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004;97:574-8.
17.Smieja Z, Zakar T, Walton JC, Olson DM. Prostaglandin endoperoxide synthase kinetics in human amnion before and after labor at term and following preterm labor. Placenta. 1993;14:163-75.
18.Koizumi N, Inatomi T, Sotozono C, Fullwood NJ, Quantock AJ, Kinoshita S. Growth factor mRNA and protein in preserved human amniotic membrane. Curr Eye Res. 2000;20:173-7.
19.Simpson K, Keelan J, Mitchell M. Labour-associated changes in the regulation of production of immunomodulators in human amnion by glucocorticoids, bacterial lipopolysaccharide and proinflammatory cytokines. J Reprod Fertil. 1999;116:321- 7.
20.Samandari M, Adibi S, Khoshzaban A, Aghazadeh S, Dihimi P, Torbaghan SS, et al. Human amniotic membrane, best healing accelerator, and the choice of bone induction for vestibuloplasty technique (an animal study). Trans Res Risk Manage. 2011;3:1-8.
21.Nakamura T, Yoshitani M, Rigby H, Fullwood NJ, Ito W, Inatomi T, et al. Sterilized, Freeze-Dried Amniotic Membrane: A Useful Substrate for Ocular Surface Reconstruction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:93- 9.
22.Urist MR, Peltier LF. Bone: Formation by Autoinduction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;395:4-10.
23. Li Z, Li ZB. Repair of mandible defect with tissue engineering bone in rabbits. ANZ J Surg. 2005;75:1017- 21.
24.Rodríguez-Ares MT, López-Valladares MJ, Tourino R, Vieites B, Gude F, Silva MT, et al. Effects of lyophilization on human amniotic membrane. Acta Ophthalmol. 2009;87:396-403.
25.Lim LS, Poh RW, Riau AK, Beuerman RW, Tan D, Mehta JS. Biological and ultrastructural properties of acelagraft, a freeze-dried γ-irradiated human amniotic membrane. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128:1303-10.
26.Libera RD, Melo GB, Lima Ade S, Haapalainen EF, Cristovam P, Gomes JA. Assessment of the use of cryopreserved x freeze-dried amniotic membrane (AM) for reconstruction of ocular surface in rabbit model. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2008;71:669-73.
27.Nakamura T, Inatomi T, Sekiyama E, Ang LP, Yokoi N, Kinoshita S. Novel clinical application of sterilized, freeze-dried amniotic membrane to treat patients with pterygium. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84:401-5.
28.Aerssens J, Boonen S, Lowet G, Dequeker J. Interspecies differences in bone composition, density, and quality: potential implications for in vivo bone research. Endocrinology. 1998;139:663-70.
29.Pearce A, Richards R, Milz S, Schneider E, Pearce S. Animal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: a review. Eur Cell Mater. 2007;13:1-10.
30.Ríos LK, Espinoza CV, Alarcón M, Huamaní JO. Bone density of defects treated with lyophilized amniotic membrane versus collagen membrane: a tomographic and histomorfogenic study in rabbit's femur. J Oral Res. 2014;3:143-9.
31.Starecki M, Schwartz JA, Grande DA. Evaluation of Amniotic-Derived Membrane Biomaterial as an Adjunct for Repair of Critical Sized Bone Defects. Adv Orthop Surg. 2014;2014:1-4.
32.Huh JY, Choi BH, Kim BY, Lee SH, Zhu SJ, Jung JH. Critical size defect in the canine mandible. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005;100:296- 301
33.Sanz M, Ferrantino L, Vignoletti F, Sanctis M, Berglundh T. Guided bone regeneration of noncontained mandibular buccal bone defects using deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a collagen membrane: an experimental in vivo investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:1466-76.
34.Sanz-Martin I, Ferrantino L, Vignoletti F, Nuñez J, Baldini N, Duvina M, et al. Contour changes after guided bone regeneration of large non-contained mandibular buccal bone defects using deproteinized bovine bonemineral and a porcine-derived collagen membrane: an experimental in vivo investigation. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;1-11.
35.Schenk RK, Buser D, Hardwick WR, Dahlin C. Healing pattern of bone regeneration in membrane-protected defects: a histologic study in the canine mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994;9:13-29.
36.Park JS, Choi SH, Moon IS, Cho KS, Chai JK, Kim CK. Eight‐week histological analysis on the effect of chitosan on surgically created one‐wall intrabony defects in beagle dogs. J Clin Periodontol. 2003;30:443-53.
37.Güler R, Ercan M, Ulutuncel N, Devrim H, Uran N. Measurement of blood flow by the 133Xe clearance technique to grafts of amnion used in vestibuloplasty. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997;35:280-3.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics