Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2023; 17(04): 1153-1162
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1759488
Original Article

Characterization of Polyvinyl Alcohol–Collagen–Hydroxyapatite Composite Membrane from Lates calcarifer Scales for Guided Tissue and Bone Regeneration

Yessy Ariesanti 
1   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Trisakti, Jakarta, Indonesia
,
Putri Graesya Melani Octavianus 
2   Undergraduate Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Trisakti, Jakarta, Indonesia
,
Annisa Tri Handayani 
2   Undergraduate Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Trisakti, Jakarta, Indonesia
,
Basril Abbas 
3   National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Jakarta, Indonesia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To determine the chemical structure, tensile strength, porosity, and degradability of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)–collagen–hydroxyapatite (HA) composite membranes for guided tissue and bone regeneration.

Materials and Methods The PVA–collagen–HA composite membrane was divided into three groups: the group without irradiation, the group with 15 kGy irradiation, and 25 kGy irradiation. Each group was tested for chemical structure with Fourier-transform infrared (FT-IR) at a wavelength of 400 to 4,000 cm−1. Tensile strength test was tested in dry and wet conditions with the standard method of American Standard Testing Mechanical (ASTM) D638, and porosity using scanning electron microscope and analyzed using ImageJ software. Degradability test immersed in a solution of phosphate-buffered saline. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test.

Results FT-IR test before and after storage for 30 days on three media showed a stable chemical structure with the same functional groups. ANOVA analysis showed a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the dry condition (p = 0.006), Tukey's test showed a significant difference in the 15 kGy and 25 kGy irradiated groups (p = 0.005), but the groups without irradiation had no significant difference with the 15 kGy (p = 0.285) and 25 kGy (p = 0.079) irradiation groups. In wet conditions, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in each group (p = 373). The size of the porosity in the group without irradiation, 15 kGy irradiation, and 25 kGy irradiation showed a size of 4.65, 6.51, and 8.08 m, respectively. The degradability test showed a decrease in weight in each group, with the total weight of the membrane being completely degraded from the most degraded to the least: the groups without irradiation, 15 kGy irradiation, and 25 kGy irradiation. The ANOVA test on the degradability test shows significant (p < 0.05) in the PVA–collagen–HA composite membrane group over time intervals (p = 0.000). Tukey's post hoc test showed a significant difference (p < 0.05) after 1 week between the groups without irradiation with 15 kGy (p = 0.023).

Conclusion PVA–collagen–HA composite membrane has a stable chemical structure, optimal tensile strength, porosity, and ideal degradability as guided bone regeneration and guided tissue regeneration.

Keywords

guided tissue regeneration - guided bone regeneration - PVA–collagen–HA composite membrane - tensile strength - chemical structure - porosity - degradability


Publication History

Article published online:
16 January 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Broers DLM, Dubois L, de Lange J, Su N, de Jongh A. Reasons for tooth removal in adults: a systematic review. Int Dent J 2022; 72 (01) 52-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Zafiropoulos GG, Kačarević ZP, Qasim SSB, Trajkovski B. Open-healing socket preservation with a novel dense polytetrafluoroethylene (dPTFE) membrane: a retrospective clinical study. Medicina (Kaunas) 2020; 56 (05) 216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Mulyawan I, Danudiningrat CP, Soesilawati P. et al. The characteristics of demineralized dentin material sponge as guided bone regeneration based on the FTIR and SEM-EDX tests. Eur J Dent 2022; 16 (04) 880-885
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Al Yafi F, Alchawaf B, Nelson K. What is the optimum for alveolar ridge preservation?. Dent Clin North Am 2019; 63 (03) 399-418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kim S-Y, Kim Y-K, Kim H-S, Yun P-Y, Kim S-G, Choi Y-H. Extraction socket sealing using palatal gingival grafts and resorbable collagen membranes. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 39 (01) 39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Zhou T, Liu X, Sui B, Liu C, Mo X, Sun J. Development of fish collagen/bioactive glass/chitosan composite nanofibers as a GTR/GBR membrane for inducing periodontal tissue regeneration. Biomed Mater 2017; 12 (05) 055004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Susanto A, Satari MH, Abbas B, Koesoemowidodo RSA, Cahyanto A. Fabrication and characterization of chitosan-collagen membrane from barramundi (Lates calcarifer) scales for guided tissue regeneration. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (03) 370-375
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Rodriguez IA, Selders GS, Fetz AE. et al. Barrier membranes for dental applications: a review and sweet advancement in membrane developments. Mouth and Teeth 2018; 2 (01) 1-9
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Sanz M, Dahlin C, Apatzidou D. et al. Biomaterials and regenerative technologies used in bone regeneration in the craniomaxillofacial region: consensus report of group 2 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration. J Clin Periodontol 2019; 46 (Suppl. 21) 82-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Escoda-Francolí J, Sánchez-Garcés MÁ, Gimeno-Sandig Á. et al. Guided bone regeneration using beta-tricalcium phosphate with and without fibronectin-an experimental study in rats. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29 (10) 1038-1049
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Elgali I, Omar O, Dahlin C, Thomsen P. Guided bone regeneration: materials and biological mechanisms revisited. Eur J Oral Sci 2017; 125 (05) 315-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sasaki J-I, Abe GL, Li A. et al. Barrier membranes for tissue regeneration in dentistry. Biomater Investig Dent 2021; 8 (01) 54-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bornert F, Herber V, Sandgren R. et al. Comparative barrier membrane degradation over time: pericardium versus dermal membranes. Clin Exp Dent Res 2021; 7 (05) 711-718
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dash BC, Hsia HC. Composite Scaffolds for Skin Repair and Regeneration. United Kingdom: Elsevier Ltd., Northwood; 2019: 193-223
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Ariesanti Y, Poedjiastoeti W, Sriyanto GA, Angraini Y. Increase of fibroblast proliferation by composite membrane (polyvinyl alcohol-collagen-hydroxyapatite). In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Health, Instrumentation & Measurement, and Natural Sciences (InHeNce). 2021:1–5
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Ariesanti Y, Latief BS, Priosoeryanto BP. Use of membrane composite (polyvinyl alcohol-collagen-hydroxyapatite) in mandibular bone regeneration of animal testing Sprague-Dawley rats. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 46: 200
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Abe GL, Sasaki JI, Katata C. et al. Fabrication of novel poly(lactic acid/caprolactone) bilayer membrane for GBR application. Dent Mater 2020; 36 (05) 626-634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ariyanti G. A Note of the Linear Equation AX = B with Multiplicatively-Reguler Matrix A in Semiring. J Phys Conf Ser 2019;1366(01):
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Nagarkar R, Patel J. Polyvinyl alcohol: a comprehensive study. Acta Sci Pharm Sci 2019; 3 (04) 34-44
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Zhou T, Zheng K, Sui B, Boccaccini AR, Sun J. In vitro evaluation of poly (vinyl alcohol)/collagen blended hydrogels for regulating human periodontal ligament fibroblasts and gingival fibroblasts. Int J Biol Macromol 2020; 163: 1938-1946
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 do Nascimento FC, de Aguiar LCV, Costa LAT. et al. Formulation and characterization of crosslinked polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) membranes: effects of the crosslinking agents. Polym Bull 2021; 78 (02) 917-929
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rynkowska E, Fatyeyeva K, Marais S, Kujawa J, Kujawski W. Chemically and thermally crosslinked PVA-based membranes: effect on swelling and transport behavior. Polymers (Basel) 2019; 11 (11) 1799
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Riaz T, Zeeshan R, Zarif F. et al. FTIR analysis of natural and synthetic collagen. Appl Spectrosc Rev 2018; 53 (09) 703-746
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Pal A, Paul S, Choudhury AR, Balla VK, Das M, Sinha A. Synthesis of hydroxyapatite from Lates calcarifer fish bone for biomedical applications. Mater Lett 2017; 203: 89-92
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Zakaria Z, Kamarudin SK, Timmiati SN, Masdar MS. New composite membrane poly(vinyl alcohol)/graphene oxide for direct ethanol–proton exchange membrane fuel cell. J Appl Polym Sci 2019; 136 (02) 1-13
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Nasef SM, Khozemy EE, Kamoun EA, El-Gendi H. Gamma radiation-induced crosslinked composite membranes based on polyvinyl alcohol/chitosan/AgNO3/vitamin E for biomedical applications. Int J Biol Macromol 2019; 137: 878-885
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Febriasari A, Suhartini M, Yunus AL. et al. Gamma irradiation of cellulose acetate-polyethylene glycol 400 composite membrane and its performance test for gas separation. Int J Technol 2021; 12 (06) 1198-1206
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Wang J, Wang L, Zhou Z. et al. Biodegradable polymer membranes applied in guided bone/tissue regeneration: a review. Polymers (Basel) 2016; 8 (04) 1-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ren Y, Yu X, Li Z, Liu D, Xue X. Fabrication of pH-responsive TA-keratin bio-composited hydrogels encapsulated with photoluminescent GO quantum dots for improved bacterial inhibition and healing efficacy in wound care management: in vivo wound evaluations. J Photochem Photobiol B 2020; 202: 111676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sharif F, Tabassum S, Mustafa W. et al. Bioresorbable antibacterial PCL-PLA-nHA composite membranes for oral and maxillofacial defects. Polym Compos 2019; 40 (04) 1564-1575
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Raz P, Brosh T, Ronen G, Tal H. Tensile properties of three selected collagen membranes. BioMed Res Int 2019; 2019: 5163603
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Adoe DGH, Riwu DBN, Banani YD. Pengaruh waktu perendaman dan media open hole discontinuous kulit buah kelapa matriks polyester. Jurnal Fisika 2020; 5 (02) 163-167
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Saha M, Mukhopadhyay M, Ray R. Impact of gamma irradiation on porosity and pore distribution of poly [ethylene-oxide] films: correlation with dielectric and microstructural properties. Indian J Phys 2018; 92 (03) 325-336
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Espiritu R, Golding BT, Scott K, Mamlouk M. Degradation of radiation grafted hydroxide anion exchange membrane immersed in neutral pH: removal of vinylbenzyl trimethylammonium hydroxide due to oxidation. J Mater Chem A Mater Energy Sustain 2017; 5 (03) 1248-1267
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Gultom P, Wicaksono ST, Purniawan A, Sudirman S, Sukaryo SG. The effect of gamma irradiation on HDPE/HA composite as candidate material dental implant. IPTEK J Technol Sci 2020; 31 (01) 25
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar