Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Differences in Mechanical and Physicochemical Properties of Several PTFE Membranes Used in Guided Bone Regeneration.
Qasim, Syed Saad Bin; Al-Asfour, Adel A; Abuzayeda, Moosa; Mohamed, Ahmed M; Trajkovski, Branko; Murray, Colin Alexander; Zafiropoulos, Gregor-Georg.
Afiliación
  • Qasim SSB; Department of Bioclinical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat 13110, Kuwait.
  • Al-Asfour AA; Department of Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat 13110, Kuwait.
  • Abuzayeda M; Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, MBR University, Dubai P.O. Box 505055, United Arab Emirates.
  • Mohamed AM; Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Kuwait University, Safat 13060, Kuwait.
  • Trajkovski B; Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat 13110, Kuwait.
  • Murray CA; Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, University of Sharjah, Sharjah P.O. Box 27272, United Arab Emirates.
  • Zafiropoulos GG; Department of Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat 13110, Kuwait.
Materials (Basel) ; 16(3)2023 Jan 17.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36769909
ABSTRACT
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 (CytoplastTM TXT-200, permamem®, NeoGen®, Surgitime, OsseoGuard®-TXT, OsseoGuard®-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® was determined to be the strongest and OsseoGuard®-TXT was the most elastic. Wettability and roughness were highest for Surgitime but lowest for OsseoGuard®-NTXT. Furthermore, permamem® was the thinnest and NeoGen® was identified as the thickest investigated GBR membrane. The defect volumes and defect volume ratio (%) varied significantly, indicating that permamem® had the least imperfect structure, followed by NeoGen® and then Cytoplast TM TXT-200. These differences may potentially affect the clinical outcomes of dental GBR procedures.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Materials (Basel) Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Kuwait

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Materials (Basel) Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Kuwait