We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 34 (2019), No. 2     22. Mar. 2019
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 34 (2019), No. 2  (22.03.2019)

Page 411-422, doi:10.11607/jomi.6777, PubMed:30883620

Evaluation of a Newly Designed Microperforated Pure Titanium Membrane for Guided Bone Regeneration
Hasegawa, Hiroshi / Masui, Seiichiro / Ishihata, Hiroshi / Kaneko, Tetsuharu / Ishida, Daichi / Endo, Manabu / Kanno, Chihiro / Yamazaki, Morio / Kitabatake, Takehiro / Utsunomiya, Shinji / Izumi, Kenji / Sasaki, Keiichi
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of newly designed, laser-perforated pure titanium membranes for guided bone regeneration and to compare them with an existing product, the FRIOS BoneShield (FBS).
Materials and Methods: Acute-type lateral ridge defects were bilaterally created in the mandibles of 13 dogs (two defects per animal). The defects were randomly divided into three groups and were reconstructed with particulate autologous bone (PAB) in combination with three different titanium membranes: (1) F001M0 (prototype without a frame), (2) F001M1 (prototype with a frame), and (3) FBS as a standard membrane. All animals were observed periodically and sacrificed 26 or 27 weeks postoperatively. At 26 weeks, approximately half of the dogs in each group underwent membrane removal to examine the postoperative condition of the titanium membranes. The samples were dissected and processed for radiographic, histologic, and histomorphometric analyses.
Results: Membrane exposure was not found in the F001M0 or F001M1 groups, and their membranes were removed easily without adhesion to the surrounding tissue. Regenerated bone tissue volume was largest in the F001M1 group, followed by the F001M0 and FBS groups. A significant difference was observed only between the F001M1 and FBS groups (P = .047). In contrast, bone mineral density was similar among the three groups. Histologically, a layer of fibrous tissue was present underneath the titanium membrane, overlying the regenerated cortical bone in all the groups. Notably, the tissue was highly vascular in the F001M1 and F001M0 groups compared with the FBS group. In addition, there was little difference in the semiquantitative soft tissue evaluation and histologic findings of bone regeneration among the three groups. The histomorphometric analysis revealed that the regenerated bone area was larger in the F001M1 and F001M0 groups than in the FBS group, and a significant difference was observed only between the F001M1 and FBS groups (P = .045). Calcific osseous area was similar among the three groups.
Conclusion: The safety and efficacy of both F001M0 and F001M1 were equivalent to or greater than those of FBS, thereby indicating their potential for future clinical applications.

Keywords: animal model, barrier membrane, guided bone regeneration, mandible, titanium membrane, ultrafine microperforation