Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

  • Volume 38
  • /
  • Pages.11.1-11.8
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 2288-8101(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8586(eISSN)
Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한악안면성형재건외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of unprocessed silk cocoon and silk cocoon middle layer membranes for guided bone regeneration

  • Kim, Seong-Gon (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Kim, Min-Keun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Kweon, HaeYong (Sericultural and Apicultural Materials Division, National Academy of Agricultural Science) ;
  • Jo, You-Young (Sericultural and Apicultural Materials Division, National Academy of Agricultural Science) ;
  • Lee, Kwang-Gill (Sericultural and Apicultural Materials Division, National Academy of Agricultural Science) ;
  • Lee, Jeong Keun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2016.01.08
  • Accepted : 2016.02.17
  • Published : 2016.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Silk cocoon is composed of multiple layers. The natural silk cocoon containing all layers was cut as a rectangular shape as defined as total group. The inner and outermost layers were removed from the total group and the remained mat was defined as the middle group. The objectives of this study was to compare the total group with the middle group as a barrier membrane for the guided bone regeneration. Methods: The effects of these materials on the cellular proliferation and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) expression of MG63 cells were explored. For comparing bone regeneration ability, bilateral bone defects were created in calvarial areas in ten adult New Zealand white rabbits. The defects were covered with silk membranes of the middle group, with silk membrane of the total group used as the control on the contralateral side. The defects were allowed to heal for 4 and 8 weeks. Micro-computerized tomography (${\mu}CT$) and histological examination were performed. Results: The middle group exhibited a higher MTT value 48 and 72 h after treatment compared to the total group. ALP expression was also higher in the middle group. The results of ${\mu}CT$ and histologic examination showed that new bone formation was significantly higher in the middle group compared to the total group 8 weeks postoperatively (P < 0.05). Conclusions: In conclusion, the middle layer of the silk cocoon supports guided bone regeneration better than unprocessed silk cocoon.

Keywords

References

  1. Hammerle CH, Jung RE, Feloutzis A (2002) A systematic review of the survival of implants in bone sites augmented with barrier membranes (guided bone regeneration) in partially edentulous patients. J Clin Periodontol 29:226-231 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051X.29.s3.14.x
  2. Bassett CA, Campbell JB, Girado JM, Rossi JP, Seymour RJ (1956) Application of monomolecular filter tubes in bridging gaps in peripheral nerves and for prevention of neuroma formation; a preliminary report. J Neurosurg 13:635-637 https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1956.13.6.0635
  3. Dahlin C, Linde A, Gottlow J, Nyman S (1988) Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration. Plast Reconstr Surg 81:672-676 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-198805000-00004
  4. Dimitriou R, Mataliotakis GI, Calori GM, Giannoudis PV (2012) The role of barrier membranes for guided bone regeneration and restoration of large bone defects: current experimental and clinical evidence. BMC Med 10:81 https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-10-81
  5. Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Sculean A, Herten M, Scherbaum W, Becker J (2004) Biocompatibility of various collagen membranes in cultures of human PDL fibroblasts and human osteoblast-like cells. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:443-449 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01039.x
  6. Lundgren D, Sennerby L, Falk H, Friberg B, Nyman S (1994) The use of a new bioresorbable barrier for guided bone regeneration in connection with implant installation. Case reports. Clin Oral Implants Res 5:177-184 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050309.x
  7. Roccuzzo M, Ramieri G, Spada MC, Bianchi SD, Berrone S (2004) Vertical alveolar ridge augmentation by means of a titanium mesh and autogenous bone grafts. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:73-81 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.00998.x
  8. Zahedi S, Legrand R, Brunel G, Albert A, Dewe W, Coumans B et al (1998) Evaluation of a diphenylphosphorylazide-crosslinked collagen membrane for guided bone regeneration in mandibular defects in rats. J Periodontol 69:1238-1246 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1998.69.11.1238
  9. Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Sager M, Herten M, Sculean A, Becker J (2005) Biodegradation of differently cross-linked collagen membranes: an experimental study in the rat. Clin Oral Impl Res 16:369-378 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01108.x
  10. Speer DP, Chvapil M, Eskelson CD, Ulreich J (1980) Biological effects of residual glutaraldehyde in glutaraldehyde-tanned collagen biomaterials. J Biomed Mater Res 14:753-764 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820140607
  11. Zhao S, Pinholt EM, Madsen JE, Donath K (2000) Histological evaluation of different biodegradable and non-biodegradable membranes implanted subcutaneously in rats. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 28:116-122 https://doi.org/10.1054/jcms.2000.0127
  12. Li C, Vepari C, Jin HJ, Kaplan DL (2006) Electrospun silk-BMP-2 scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 27:3115-3124 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.022
  13. Kim MK, Yoo KY, Kwon KJ et al (2014) Powdered wound dressing materials made from wild silkworm Antheraea pernyi silk fibroin on full-skin thickness burn wounds on rats. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 36:111-115 https://doi.org/10.14402/jkamprs.2014.36.3.111
  14. Park YT, Kweon HY, Kim SG (2014) Soft tissue augmentation with silk composite graft. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 36:192-200 https://doi.org/10.14402/jkamprs.2014.36.5.192
  15. Valluzzi R, Gido SP, Muller W, Kaplan DL (1999) Orientation of silk III at the air-water interface. Int J Biol Macromol 24:237-242 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-8130(99)00002-1
  16. Kim JY, Choi JY, Jeong JH, Jang ES, Kim AS, Kim SG et al (2010) Low molecular weight silk fibroin increases alkaline phosphatase and type I collagen expression in MG63 cells. BMB Rep 43:52-56 https://doi.org/10.5483/BMBRep.2010.43.1.052
  17. Lee SW, Kim SG (2014) Membranes for the guided bone regeneration. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 36:239-246 https://doi.org/10.14402/jkamprs.2014.36.6.239
  18. Song JY, Kim SG, Lee JW, Chae WS, Kweon H, Jo YY et al (2011) Accelerated healing with the use of a silk fibroin membrane for the guided bone regeneration technique. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol 112:e26-e33
  19. Retzepi M, Donos N (2010) Guided bone regeneration: biological principle and therapeutic applications. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:567-576 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01922.x
  20. Aramwit P, Kanokpanont S, De-Eknamkul W, Srichana T (2009) Monitoring of inflammatory mediators induced by silk sericin. J Biosci Bioengineer 107:556-561 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2008.12.012
  21. Seok H, Kim MK, Kim SG, Kweon H (2014) Comparison of silkworm-cocoonderived silk membranes of two different thicknesses for guided bone regeneration. J Craniofac Surg 25:2066-2069 https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000001151
  22. Dewair M, Baur X, Ziegler K (1985) Use of immunoblot technique for detection of human IgE and IgG antibodies to individual silk proteins. J Allergy Clin Immunol 76:537-542 https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-6749(85)90772-9
  23. Vepari C, Kaplan DL (2007) Silk as a biomaterial. Progr Polym Sci 32:991-1007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2007.05.013
  24. Zhao HP, Feng XQ, Yu SW, Cui WZ, Zou FZ (2005) Mechanical properties of silkworm cocoons. Polymer 46:9192-9201 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2005.07.004
  25. Ha YY, Park YW, Kweon HY, Jo YY, Kim SG (2014) Comparison of the physical properties and in vivo bioactivities of silkworm-cocoon-derived silk membrane, collagen membrane, and polytetrafluoroethylene membrane for guided bone regeneration. Macromol Res 22:1018-1023 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13233-014-2138-2
  26. Mondal M, Trivedy K, Nirmal Kumar S (2007) The silk proteins, sericin and fibroin in silkworm, Bombyx mori Linn.,-a review. Caspian J Env Sci 5:63-76
  27. Aramwit P, Towiwat P, Srichana T (2013) Anti-inflammatory potential of silk sericin. Nat Prod Commun 8:501-504
  28. Panilaitis B, Altman GH, Chen J, Jin HJ, Karageorgiou V, Kaplan DL (2003) Macrophage responses to silk. Biomaterials 24:3079-3085 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00158-3
  29. Tal H, Kozlovsky A, Artzi Z, Nemcovsky CE, Moses O (2008) Cross-linked and non-cross-linked collagen barrier membranes disintegrate following surgical exposure to the oral environment: a histological study in the cat. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:760-766 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01546.x

Cited by

  1. In vivo bone regeneration ability of different layers of natural silk cocoon processed using an eco-friendly method vol.25, pp.8, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13233-017-5085-x
  2. Comparison of Bio-degradation for Ridge Preservation Using Silk Fibroin-based Grafts and a Collagen Plug vol.14, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13770-017-0055-0
  3. Silk Fibroin-Alginate-Hydroxyapatite Composite Particles in Bone Tissue Engineering Applications In Vivo vol.18, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18040858
  4. Comparative study on bone regeneration between silk mat incorporated 4-hexylresorcinol and collagen membrane vol.34, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7852/ijie.2017.34.2.32
  5. Bone regeneration is associated with the concentration of tumour necrosis factor-α induced by sericin released from a silk mat vol.7, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15687-w
  6. Novel PTCH1 Gene Mutation in Nevoid Basal Cell Carcinoma Syndrome vol.29, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000004274
  7. Silk Protein-Based Membrane for Guided Bone Regeneration vol.8, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/app8081214
  8. Angioplasty Using 4-Hexylresorcinol-Incorporated Silk Vascular Patch in Rat Carotid Defect Model vol.8, pp.12, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/app8122388
  9. Clinical Study for Silk Mat Application into Extraction Socket: A Split-Mouth, Randomized Clinical Trial vol.9, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9061208
  10. Comparison of the Physical Properties and in vivo Bioactivities of Flatwise-Spun Silk Mats and Cocoon-Derived Silk Mats for Guided Bone Regeneration vol.28, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13233-020-8026-z
  11. Morphology, molecular conformation and moisture regain of cocoons of different silkworm varieties vol.40, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7852/ijie.2020.40.1.6