IM0110

I 27 user report _ bone regeneration I implants1_2010 These data agree with the results of a preclinical studyinthepigmodel(N=17).Thisshowedthatthe proportion of newly formed bone in experimental bone defects of the skull was similar when Geistlich Bio-Gide®wasusedtowhenanexperimentalcross- linked collagen membrane was employed—in each case in combination with Geistlich Bio-Oss® and in- dependent of the size of the defect (Fig. 1). Both membranes also showed significantly better bone regenerationincombinationwithGeistlichBio-Oss® than when the bone substitute was used without a membrane (Bornstein, Heynen et al. 2009). _Fewer wound dehiscences with Geistlich Bio-Gide® Compared with the cross-linked collagen mem- brane, it is also apparent that the use of the natural collagenmembraneGeistlichBio-Gide®leadstobet- terwoundhealing.IntheclinicalstudybyBeckeretal. wound dehiscences and membrane exposures over 16 weeks were fewer with Geistlich Bio-Gide® than with an experimental cross-linked collagen mem- brane (Fig. 2). Whereas inflammation did not occur with Geistlich Bio-Gide® it was significantly more with the cross-linked membrane after four and 16weeks(Becker,Al-Nawasetal.2009). The recent data are thus confirmed by the results ofaclinicalstudybyTaletal.(2008),whoshowedthat membrane exposure occurs significantly more often with the cross-linked collagen membrane Ossix® than with Geistlich Bio-Gide®. Wound dehiscences occurred about twice as often in the study when the artificiallycross-linkedmembranewasused(Tal,Ko- zlovskyetal.2008). _Cross-linking reduces biocompatibility ThebetterwoundhealingachievedwithGeistlich Bio-Gide® is based on the superior biocompatibility of the natural membrane in comparison with colla- gen membranes that were artificially cross-linked. With the cross-linked membranes, vascularisation is lower and/or much slower and tissue integration is diminished(Rothamel,Schwarzetal.2005;Schwarz, Rothameletal.2006).Inaddition,Rothameletal.ob- served a foreign body reaction with different cross- linked membranes in the rat model, but not with the naturalGeistlichBio-Gide®(Rothamel,Schwarzetal. 2005).Inaninvivostudy,moreover,itwasshownthat the natural non-cross-linked collagen membrane promotes proliferation and adhesion of cells. After seven days, the number of osteoblast-like cells and fibroblasts of the periodontal ligament was highest in cultures with Geistlich Bio-Gide® (Rothamel, Schwarzetal.2004). _References 1.Becker,J.,B.Al-Nawas,etal.(2009).“Useofanewcross-linked collagen membrane for the treatment of dehiscence-type de- fects at titanium implants: a prospective, randomized-con- trolled double-blinded clinical multicenter study.” Clin Oral Im- plants Res.20(7):742–9. 2.Bornstein,M.M.,G.Heynen,et al.(2009).“Effect of two bioab- sorbable barrier membranes on bone regeneration of stan- dardizeddefectsincalvarialbone:acomparativehistomorpho- metric study in pigs.”J Periodontol 80(8):1289–99. 3.Rothamel, D., F. Schwarz, et al. (2005).“Biodegradation of dif- ferently cross-linked collagen membranes: an experimental study in the rat.”Clin Oral Implants Res 16(3):369–78. Editorial note: The whole literature list can be re- questedfromtheeditorialoffice. Fig. 2_Use of the natural collagen membrane Geistlich Bio-Gide® (GBG) led to fewer complications in wound healing than use of an experimental cross-linked collagen membrane (CCM). Inflammation, soft tissue de- hiscence and membrane exposure occurred more often up to 16 weeks after the procedure when the cross- linked membrane was used (Becker, Al-Nawas et al. 2009). Fig. 2 Dr Heike Wanner Bahnhofstrasse 40 6110Wolhusen,Switzerland _contact implants