Differences in Mechanical and Physicochemical Properties of Several PTFE Membranes Used in Guided Bone Regeneration
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 physic...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2023-01-01
|
| Series: | Materials |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/16/3/904 |
| _version_ | 1797624008807546880 |
|---|---|
| author | Syed Saad Bin Qasim Adel A. Al-Asfour Moosa Abuzayeda Ahmed M. Mohamed Branko Trajkovski Colin Alexander Murray Gregor-Georg Zafiropoulos |
| author_facet | Syed Saad Bin Qasim Adel A. Al-Asfour Moosa Abuzayeda Ahmed M. Mohamed Branko Trajkovski Colin Alexander Murray Gregor-Georg Zafiropoulos |
| author_sort | Syed Saad Bin Qasim |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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 (Cytoplast<sup>TM</sup> TXT-200, permamem<sup>®</sup>, NeoGen<sup>®</sup>, Surgitime, OsseoGuard<sup>®</sup>-TXT, OsseoGuard<sup>®</sup>-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<sup>®</sup> was determined to be the strongest and OsseoGuard<sup>®</sup>-TXT was the most elastic. Wettability and roughness were highest for Surgitime but lowest for OsseoGuard<sup>®</sup>-NTXT. Furthermore, permamem<sup>®</sup> was the thinnest and NeoGen<sup>®</sup> was identified as the thickest investigated GBR membrane. The defect volumes and defect volume ratio (%) varied significantly, indicating that permamem<sup>®</sup> had the least imperfect structure, followed by NeoGen<sup>®</sup> and then Cytoplast <sup>TM</sup> TXT-200. These differences may potentially affect the clinical outcomes of dental GBR procedures. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T09:36:49Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b4d8d2b6a90440e68a531c1b37ac53dc |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1996-1944 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T09:36:49Z |
| publishDate | 2023-01-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Materials |
| spelling | doaj.art-b4d8d2b6a90440e68a531c1b37ac53dc2023-11-16T17:14:17ZengMDPI AGMaterials1996-19442023-01-0116390410.3390/ma16030904Differences in Mechanical and Physicochemical Properties of Several PTFE Membranes Used in Guided Bone RegenerationSyed Saad Bin Qasim0Adel A. Al-Asfour1Moosa Abuzayeda2Ahmed M. Mohamed3Branko Trajkovski4Colin Alexander Murray5Gregor-Georg Zafiropoulos6Department of Bioclinical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat 13110, KuwaitDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat 13110, KuwaitDepartment of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, MBR University, Dubai P.O. Box 505055, United Arab EmiratesDepartment of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Kuwait University, Safat 13060, KuwaitFaculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat 13110, KuwaitDepartment of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, University of Sharjah, Sharjah P.O. Box 27272, United Arab EmiratesDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat 13110, KuwaitNon-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 (Cytoplast<sup>TM</sup> TXT-200, permamem<sup>®</sup>, NeoGen<sup>®</sup>, Surgitime, OsseoGuard<sup>®</sup>-TXT, OsseoGuard<sup>®</sup>-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<sup>®</sup> was determined to be the strongest and OsseoGuard<sup>®</sup>-TXT was the most elastic. Wettability and roughness were highest for Surgitime but lowest for OsseoGuard<sup>®</sup>-NTXT. Furthermore, permamem<sup>®</sup> was the thinnest and NeoGen<sup>®</sup> was identified as the thickest investigated GBR membrane. The defect volumes and defect volume ratio (%) varied significantly, indicating that permamem<sup>®</sup> had the least imperfect structure, followed by NeoGen<sup>®</sup> and then Cytoplast <sup>TM</sup> TXT-200. These differences may potentially affect the clinical outcomes of dental GBR procedures.https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/16/3/904guided bone regeneration/GBRphysicochemical propertiesPTFE membranescomputerized tomography/CTmicro-CTnano-CT |
| spellingShingle | Syed Saad Bin Qasim Adel A. Al-Asfour Moosa Abuzayeda Ahmed M. Mohamed Branko Trajkovski Colin Alexander Murray Gregor-Georg Zafiropoulos Differences in Mechanical and Physicochemical Properties of Several PTFE Membranes Used in Guided Bone Regeneration Materials guided bone regeneration/GBR physicochemical properties PTFE membranes computerized tomography/CT micro-CT nano-CT |
| title | Differences in Mechanical and Physicochemical Properties of Several PTFE Membranes Used in Guided Bone Regeneration |
| title_full | Differences in Mechanical and Physicochemical Properties of Several PTFE Membranes Used in Guided Bone Regeneration |
| title_fullStr | Differences in Mechanical and Physicochemical Properties of Several PTFE Membranes Used in Guided Bone Regeneration |
| title_full_unstemmed | Differences in Mechanical and Physicochemical Properties of Several PTFE Membranes Used in Guided Bone Regeneration |
| title_short | Differences in Mechanical and Physicochemical Properties of Several PTFE Membranes Used in Guided Bone Regeneration |
| title_sort | differences in mechanical and physicochemical properties of several ptfe membranes used in guided bone regeneration |
| topic | guided bone regeneration/GBR physicochemical properties PTFE membranes computerized tomography/CT micro-CT nano-CT |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/16/3/904 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT syedsaadbinqasim differencesinmechanicalandphysicochemicalpropertiesofseveralptfemembranesusedinguidedboneregeneration AT adelaalasfour differencesinmechanicalandphysicochemicalpropertiesofseveralptfemembranesusedinguidedboneregeneration AT moosaabuzayeda differencesinmechanicalandphysicochemicalpropertiesofseveralptfemembranesusedinguidedboneregeneration AT ahmedmmohamed differencesinmechanicalandphysicochemicalpropertiesofseveralptfemembranesusedinguidedboneregeneration AT brankotrajkovski differencesinmechanicalandphysicochemicalpropertiesofseveralptfemembranesusedinguidedboneregeneration AT colinalexandermurray differencesinmechanicalandphysicochemicalpropertiesofseveralptfemembranesusedinguidedboneregeneration AT gregorgeorgzafiropoulos differencesinmechanicalandphysicochemicalpropertiesofseveralptfemembranesusedinguidedboneregeneration |