Modern Ağız ve Çene Cerrahisinde Sentetik GBR Membranlarının Rolü ve Geleceği

Öz

Yönlendirilmiş Kemik Rejenerasyonu (GBR) membranları, zorlu klinik senaryolarda kemik rejenerasyonunu kolaylaştırmak için bir bariyer sağlayarak modern ağız ve çene cerrahisinde çok önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Doğal malzeme bazlı membranlara alternatif olarak sentetik GBR membranları, biyouyumlulukları, kontrollü biyolojik bozunmaları, mekanik stabiliteleri ve özelleştirme kolaylıkları nedeniyle önemli avantajlar sunmaktadır. Bu membranlar, inflamatuar reaksiyonları en aza indirmek, bozunmayı kemik iyileşme süreciyle senkronize etmek ve yumuşak doku istilasını kemik defektlerine önlemek için tasarlanmıştır. Üretimlerinde yaygın olarak polilaktik asit (PLA), polikaprolakton (PCL) ve poliglikolik asit (PGA) gibi malzemeler kullanılır ve kompozit tasarımlar, osteokondüktif ve osteoindüktif özellikleri artırmak için biyoaktif seramikleri içerir. Elektro eğirme ve 3D baskı dahil olmak üzere gelişmiş üretim teknikleri, hastaya özel tasarımlara, çok katmanlı mimarilere ve biyoaktif moleküllerin entegrasyonuna olanak tanır. Ağız ve çene cerrahisinde klinik uygulamalar arasında alveoler sırtın korunması, peri-implant kemik defektlerinin yönetimi, kist veya tümör rezeksiyonu sonrası defektlerin onarımı ve sinüs büyütme işlemleri yer almaktadır. Sentetik membranlar, kemik hacmini korumada, greft materyallerini stabilize etmede ve osteogenezi desteklemede etkili olduklarını göstermiş, böylece dental implant tedavisi ve diğer rekonstrüktif işlemler için sonuçları optimize etmiştir. Bu derleme, sentetik GBR membranlarının özelliklerini, malzeme seçimini ve klinik uygulamalarını inceleyerek, kemik rejenerasyon tekniklerini geliştirmedeki rollerini vurgulamaktadır. Ek olarak, biyofonksiyonelleştirme ve çoklu malzeme yaklaşımları da dahil olmak üzere membran tasarımındaki gelecekteki yönler ve yenilikler, rejeneratif tedavilerde klinik başarıyı artırma potansiyelini vurgulamak için tartışılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kemik yenilenmesi
• membranlar
• ağız cerrahisi
• biyouyumlu malzemeler

The Role and Future of Synthetic Gbr Membranes in Modern Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Öz

Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) membranes play a crucial role in modern oral and maxillofacial surgery by providing a barrier to facilitate bone regeneration in challenging clinical scenarios. Synthetic GBR membranes, as alternatives to natural material-based membranes, offer significant advantages due to their biocompatibility, controlled biodegradation, mechanical stability, and ease of customization. These membranes are engineered to minimize inflammatory reactions, synchronize degradation with the bone healing process, and prevent soft tissue invasion into bone defects. Materials such as polylactic acid (PLA), polycaprolactone (PCL), and polyglycolic acid (PGA) are commonly employed in their fabrication, with composite designs incorporating bioactive ceramics to enhance osteoconductive and osteoinductive properties. Advanced manufacturing techniques, including electrospinning and 3D printing, allow for patient-specific designs, multilayered architectures, and integration of bioactive molecules. Clinical applications in oral and maxillofacial surgery include alveolar ridge preservation, peri-implant bone defect management, repair of defects following cyst or tumor resection, and sinus augmentation procedures. Synthetic membranes have demonstrated effectiveness in maintaining bone volume, stabilizing graft materials, and promoting osteogenesis, thereby optimizing outcomes for dental implant therapy and other reconstructive procedures. This review explores the properties, material selection, and clinical applications of synthetic GBR membranes, emphasizing their role in advancing bone regeneration techniques. Additionally, future directions and innovations in membrane design, including biofunctionalization and multi-material approaches, are discussed to highlight the potential for improving clinical success in regenerative therapies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bone regeneration
• membranes
• oral surgery
• biocompatible materials

Kaynakça

1. Retzepi M, Donos N. Guided Bone Regeneration: biological principle and therapeutic applications. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(6):567-576.
2. Karahaliloğlu Z, Ercan B, Taylor EN, Chung S, Denkbaş EB, Webster TJ. Antibacterial Nanostructured Polyhydroxybutyrate Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration. J Biomed Nanotechnol. 2015;11(12):2253-2263.
3. Abtahi S, Chen X, Shahabi S, Nasiri N. Resorbable Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration: Critical Features, Potentials, and Limitations. ACS Mater Au. 2023;3(5):394-417.
4. Murray PE, García Godoy C, García Godoy F. How is the biocompatibilty of dental biomaterials evaluated?. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2007;12(3):E258-E266.
5. Liang H, Yin J, Man K, et al. A long-lasting guided bone regeneration membrane from sequentially functionalised photoactive atelocollagen. Acta Biomater. 2022;140:190-205.
6. Hu X, He Y, Tong Y, et al. Fabrication and characterization of a multi-functional GBR membrane of gelatin-chitosan for osteogenesis and angiogenesis. Int J Biol Macromol. 2024;266(Pt 2):130978.
7. Ghavimi MA, Bani Shahabadi A, Jarolmasjed S, Memar MY, Maleki Dizaj S, Sharifi S. Nanofibrous asymmetric collagen/curcumin membrane containing aspirin-loaded PLGA nanoparticles for guided bone regeneration. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):18200.
8. Schwarz F, Sager M, Rothamel D, Herten M, Sculean A, Becker J. Einsatz nativer und quervernetzter Kollagenmembranen für die gesteuerte Gewebe- und Knochenregeneration [Use of native and cross-linked collagen membranes for guided tissue and bone regeneration]. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2006;116(11):1112-1123.

9. Oh SH, Kim JH, Kim JM, Lee JH. Asymmetrically porous PLGA/Pluronic F127 membrane for effective guided bone regeneration. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2006;17(12):1375-1387.
10. Cheon SY, Kim J, Lee KY, Lee CM. Poly (l-lactic acid) membrane crosslinked with Genipin for guided bone regeneration. Int J Biol Macromol. 2021;191:1228-1239.
11. Zhang HY, Jiang HB, Ryu JH, Kang H, Kim KM, Kwon JS. Comparing Properties of Variable Pore-Sized 3D-Printed PLA Membrane with Conventional PLA Membrane for Guided Bone/Tissue Regeneration. Materials (Basel). 2019;12(10):1718.
12. Wang J, Wang L, Zhou Z, et al. Biodegradable Polymer Membranes Applied in Guided Bone/Tissue Regeneration: A Review. Polymers (Basel). 2016;8(4):115.
13. Mota C, Puppi D, Chiellini F, Chiellini E. Additive manufacturing techniques for the production of tissue engineering constructs. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2015;9(3):174-190.
14. Jamalpour MR, Yadegari A, Vahdatinia F, et al. 3D-printed bi-layered polymer/hydrogel construct for interfacial tissue regeneration in a canine model. Dent Mater. 2022;38(8):1316-1329.
15. Ma K, Mei D, Lin X, et al. A Synthetic Biodegradable Polymer Membrane for Guided Bone Regeneration in Bone Defect. J Biomed Nanotechnol. 2021;17(3):456-465.
16. Wang B, Zeng Y, Liu S, et al. ZIF-8 induced hydroxyapatite-like crystals enabled superior osteogenic ability of MEW printing PCL scaffolds. J Nanobiotechnology. 2023;21(1):264.
17. Askar I, Gultan SM, Erden E, Yormuk E. Effects of polyglycolic acid bioabsorbable membrane and oxidised cellulose on the osteogenesis in bone defects: an experimental study. Acta Chir Plast. 2003;45(4):131-138.
18. Deepika M, G JP, Pavan B, Bhairavi K, R AD, Aishwarya R. Evaluation of PRF and PLA-PGA Membrane Along with Hydroxyapatite Crystal Collagen Fibers Bone Graft in the Treatment of Infrabony Defects. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2023;24(7):442-448.
19. Peng C, Vishwakarma A, Mankoci S, Barton HA, Joy A. Structure-Activity Study of Antibacterial Poly(ester urethane)s with Uniform Distribution of Hydrophobic and Cationic Groups. Biomacromolecules. 2019;20(4):1675-1682.
20. Hassanajili S, Karami-Pour A, Oryan A, Talaei-Khozani T. Preparation and characterization of PLA/PCL/HA composite scaffolds using indirect 3D printing for bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019;104:109960.
21. Li J, Wang C, Gao G, et al. MBG/ PGA-PCL composite scaffolds provide highly tunable degradation and osteogenic features. Bioact Mater. 2021;15:53-67.
22. Karapataki S, Hugoson A, Kugelberg CF. Healing following GTR treatment of bone defects distal to mandibular 2nd molars after surgical removal of impacted 3rd molars. J Clin Periodontol. 2000;27(5):325-332.
23. Pla R, Sanz-Esporrin J, Noguerol F, Vignoletti F, Gamarra P, Sanz M. A Synthetic Bio-Absorbable Membrane in Guided Bone Regeneration in Dehiscence-Type Defects: An Experimental In Vivo Investigation in Dogs. Bioengineering (Basel). 2023;10(7):841.
24. Lee H, Kim EY, Lee UL. Vertical augmentation of a severely atrophied posterior mandibular alveolar ridge for a dental implant using a patient-specific 3D printed PCL/BGS7 scaffold: A technical note [published correction appears in J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024 Sep;125(4):101875.
25. Saputra DR, Nugraha AP, Baydowi G, Kamadjaja DB, Indiralia A. Guide bone regeneration (GBR) reconstruction of extensive alveolar bone defect due to infected radicular cyst enucleation: 2 case reports. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2023;106:108280.
26. Yamaguchi K, Munakata M, Sato D, Kataoka Y, Kawamata R. The Effectiveness and Practicality of a Novel Barrier Membrane for the Open Window in Maxillary Sinus Augmentation with a Lateral Approach, with Risk Indicators for Bone Graft Displacement and Bone Height Decrease: A Prospective Study in Humans. Bioengineering. 2023; 10(10):1110.
27. Corbella S, Taschieri S, Elkabbany A, Del Fabbro M, von Arx T. Guided Tissue Regeneration Using a Barrier Membrane in Endodontic Surgery. Swiss Dent J. 2016;126(1):13-25.
28. Mizraji G, Davidzohn A, Gursoy M, Gursoy U, Shapira L, Wilensky A. Membrane barriers for guided bone regeneration: An overview of available biomaterials. Periodontol 2000. 2023;93(1):56-76.
29. Shi R, Ye J, Li W, et al. Infection-responsive electrospun nanofiber mat for antibacterial guided tissue regeneration membrane. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019;100:523-534.
30. Kavarthapu A, Malaiappan S. Comparative evaluation of demineralized bone matrix and type II collagen membrane versus eggshell powder as a graft material and membrane in rat model. Indian J Dent Res. 2019;30(6):877-880.
31. Lian M, Sun B, Qiao Z, et al. Bi-layered electrospun nanofibrous membrane with osteogenic and antibacterial properties for guided bone regeneration. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2019;176:219-229.
32. Böstman O, Pihlajamäki H. Clinical biocompatibility of biodegradable orthopaedic implants for internal fixation: a review. Biomaterials. 2000;21(24):2615-2621.
33. Enislidis G, Lagogiannis G, Wittwer G, Glaser C, Ewers R. Fixation of zygomatic fractures with a biodegradable copolymer osteosynthesis system: short- and long-term results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;34(1):19-26.
34. Wu X, Ni S, Dai T, et al. Biomineralized tetramethylpyrazine-loaded PCL/gelatin nanofibrous membrane promotes vascularization and bone regeneration of rat cranium defects. J Nanobiotechnology. 2023;21(1):423.
35. Lv Y, Sang X, Tian Z, et al. Electrospun hydroxyapatite loaded L-polylactic acid aligned nanofibrous membrane patch for rotator cuff repair. Int J Biol Macromol. 2022;217:180-187.
36. Lin J, Liu L, Huang S, et al. PCL nanofibrous incorporating unique matrix fusion protein adsorbed mesoporous bioactive glass for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol. 2022;208:136-148.
37. Sun H, Dong J, Wang Y, et al. Polydopamine-Coated Poly(l-lactide) Nanofibers with Controlled Release of VEGF and BMP-2 as a Regenerative Periosteum. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2021;7(10):4883-4897.
38. Jo JY, Jeong SI, Shin YM, et al. Sequential delivery of BMP-2 and BMP-7 for bone regeneration using a heparinized collagen membrane. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44(7):921-928.
39. Sufaru IG, Macovei G, Stoleriu S, et al. 3D Printed and Bioprinted Membranes and Scaffolds for the Periodontal Tissue Regeneration: A Narrative Review. Membranes (Basel). 2022;12(9):902.
40. Zhao D, Dong H, Niu Y, et al. Electrophoretic deposition of novel semi-permeable coatings on 3D-printed Ti-Nb alloy meshes for guided alveolar bone regeneration. Dent Mater. 2022;38(2):431-443.