journal article·2024-10-09Open access

Amino Acid-Based Poly(ester urea) Biodegradable Membrane for Guided Bone Regeneration

Renan Dal-Fabbro, Caroline Anselmi, W. Benton Swanson, Lais Medeiros Cardoso, Priscila T. A. Toledo, Arwa Daghrery, Darnell Kaigler, Alexandra Abel, Matthew L. Becker, Sherif Soliman, Marco C. Bottino

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces· Volume 16· Issue 40

Abstract

Barrier membranes (BM) for guided bone regeneration (GBR) aim to support the osteogenic healing process of a defined bony defect by excluding epithelial (gingival) ingrowth and enabling osteoprogenitor and stem cells to proliferate and differentiate into bone tissue. Currently, the most widely used membranes for these approaches are collagen-derived, and there is a discrepancy in defining the optimal collagen membrane in terms of biocompatibility, strength, and degradation rates. Motivated by these clinical observations, we designed a collagen-free membrane based on l -valine- co - l -phenylalanine-poly(ester urea) (PEU) copolymer via electrospinning. Degradation and mechanical properties of these membranes were performed on as-spun and water-aged samples. Alveolar-bone-derived stem cells (AvBMSCs) were seeded on the PEU BM to assess their cell compatibility and osteogenic characteristics, including cell viability, attachment/spreading, proliferation, and mineralized tissue-associated gene expression. In vivo, PEU BMs were subcutaneously implanted in rats to evaluate their potential to cause inflammatory responses and facilitate angiogenesis. Finally, critical-size calvarial defects and a periodontal model were used to assess the regenerative capacity of the electrospun PEU BM compared to clinically available Cytoflex synthetic membranes. PEU BM demonstrated equal biocompatibility to Cytoflex with superior mechanical performance in strength and elasticity. Additionally, after 14 days, PEU BM exhibited a higher expression of BGLAP/osteocalcin and superior in vivo performance–less inflammation and increased CD31 and VWF expression over time. When placed in critical-sized defects in the calvaria of rats, the PEU BM led to robust bone formation with high expression of osteogenesis and angiogenesis markers. Moreover, our membrane enhanced alveolar bone and cementum regeneration in an established periodontal model after 8 weeks. We demonstrate that the PEU BM exhibits favorable clinical properties, including mechanical stability, cytocompatibility, and facilitated bone formation in vitro and in vivo. This highlights its suitability for GBR in periodontal and craniofacial bone defects.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications · Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Cariology, Restorative Sciences, and Endodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104, United States

Department of Morphology and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Araraquara, São Paulo 01049-010, Brazil

Department of Biologic and Materials Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104, United States

Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Araraquara, São Paulo 01049-010, Brazil

Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Araçatuba, São Paulo 01049-010, Brazil

Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 82943, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104, United States

Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104, United States

Departments of Chemistry, Mechanical Engineering and Material Science, Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27710, United States

Matregenix, Inc., Mission Viejo, California 92691, United States

Funding

National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research · Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems

References (54)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.3389/fcell.2023.111237810.3389/fcell.2023.1112378 ↗
2. Nguyen D. C. · Mo. Med. · 2021 · 118 · 130
3. 10.1902/jop.1976.47.5.25610.1902/jop.1976.47.5.256 ↗
4. 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1982.tb02095.x10.1111/j.1600-051X.1982.tb02095.x ↗
5. 10.1111/prd.1250210.1111/prd.12502 ↗
6. 10.1097/01.id.0000204762.39826.0f10.1097/01.id.0000204762.39826.0f ↗
7. Block M. S. · Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants · 1998 · 13 · 342
8. 10.1111/jre.1253010.1111/jre.12530 ↗
9. 10.1002/ctm2.69010.1002/ctm2.690 ↗
10. 10.1080/09506608.2021.194623610.1080/09506608.2021.1946236 ↗
11. 10.15761/MTJ.100010810.15761/MTJ.1000108 ↗
12. 10.1111/jcpe.1306810.1111/jcpe.13068 ↗
13. 10.1177/002203451245737310.1177/0022034512457373 ↗
14. 10.14402/jkamprs.2014.36.6.23910.14402/jkamprs.2014.36.6.239 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.02210.1016/j.dental.2012.04.022 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.11939910.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119399 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.08.00310.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.08.003 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.06.03810.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.06.038 ↗
19. 10.1002/adhm.20160040010.1002/adhm.201600400 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.11.05210.1016/j.jconrel.2020.11.052 ↗
21. 10.3390/polym1416339710.3390/polym14163397 ↗
22. 10.1177/002203451351053010.1177/0022034513510530 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.dental.2022.03.00610.1016/j.dental.2022.03.006 ↗
24. 10.3390/ijms23221376110.3390/ijms232213761 ↗
25. 10.1038/s41368-024-00316-w10.1038/s41368-024-00316-w ↗
26. 10.3791/54719-v10.3791/54719-v ↗
27. 10.1021/acsami.3c0305910.1021/acsami.3c03059 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.bioadv.2023.21342710.1016/j.bioadv.2023.213427 ↗
29. 10.1002/adhm.20237005510.1002/adhm.202370055 ↗
30. 10.1021/acsnano.8b0962310.1021/acsnano.8b09623 ↗
31. 10.1002/adfm.20170343710.1002/adfm.201703437 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.05.03710.1016/j.actbio.2019.05.037 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2009.12.00510.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2009.12.005 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.04.05310.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.04.053 ↗
35. 10.3389/fbioe.2022.92157610.3389/fbioe.2022.921576 ↗
36. 10.3390/jfb1407035010.3390/jfb14070350 ↗
37. 10.1002/app.3507110.1002/app.35071 ↗
38. 10.3389/fcell.2020.60122410.3389/fcell.2020.601224 ↗
39. 10.3390/ijms2211544510.3390/ijms22115445 ↗
40. 10.5051/jpis.200038001910.5051/jpis.2000380019 ↗
41. 10.3390/membranes1109071210.3390/membranes11090712 ↗
42. 10.21873/invivo.1214810.21873/invivo.12148 ↗
43. DeLisser H. M. · Am. J. Pathol. · 1997 · 151 · 671
44. 10.1111/jth.1355110.1111/jth.13551 ↗
45. 10.1182/blood-2010-01-26450710.1182/blood-2010-01-264507 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.02.06510.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.02.065 ↗
47. 10.3389/fimmu.2014.0051410.3389/fimmu.2014.00514 ↗
48. 10.1902/jop.2016.16008110.1902/jop.2016.160081 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.10.03510.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.10.035 ↗
50. 10.1155/2015/81646010.1155/2015/816460 ↗
51. 10.12703/P6-1310.12703/P6-13 ↗
52. 10.4317/medoral.2120010.4317/medoral.21200 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.02210.1016/j.dental.2012.04.022 ↗
54. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c0069010.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c00690 ↗