Histological Outcomes of Using Gutta-Percha Barrier Membrane vs. Cytoplast™ for Repair of Parietal Bone Defects in Rabbits
Experimental and clinical studies have shown the use of barrier membranes to be beneficial in treating bone defects [1]. An important feature of membranes is their biocompatibility. Gutta-percha, being used in endodontic treatments for many years, has been proved to be compatible with human tissues [2]. In this study, we study the histological outcomes of using a gutta-percha membrane and compare them with that of a conventional product, Cytoplast™, which is a brand of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane.
Materials and Methods:
In this experimental study, three 8-mm midline sagittal holes were created in the parietal bones of four female albino New Zealand rabbits. The anterior defect was covered with Cytoplast™ Barrier Membrane, the middle defect was not covered with membrane (control), and the posterior defect was covered with gutta-percha membrane. Two rabbits were sacrifice after 20 d, with the other two being killed after 40 d. Defect sites were assessed using light microscopy. The Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test was used to compare the osteogenesis rate among the three intervention groups, and the Mann-Whitney non-parametric test was used for comparison of the osteogenesis rate between two intervention groups.
Results:
Ossified area was significantly larger in the gutta-percha and Cytoplast™ defects as compared to the controls (p= 0.029) but no significant difference was observed between the gutta-percha and Cytoplast™ defects. Mild inflammation was seen after 20 d but none was evident after 40 d.
Conclusions:
Gutta-percha, while being biologically compatible, was equally effective as Cytoplast™ in accelerating the repair of bone defects.
References:
[1] Meining RP, Rahn B, Perren SM, Gogolewski S. Bone regeneration with resorbable polymeric membranes: treatment of diaphyseal bone defects in the rabbit radius with poly (L-lactide) membrane. J Orthop Trauma 1996; 10 (3): 178-90.
[2] de Souza Filho FJ, Gallina G, Gallottini L, Russo R, Cumbo EM. Innovations in endodontic filling materials: guttapercha vs Resilon. Curr Pharm Des 2012; 18 (34): 5553-8.