Preclinical evaluation of mucogingival defect treatment using piscine membranes: An in vivo assessment of wound healing

Abstract

AbstractPeriodontitis is a bacteria‐induced chronic inflammatory disease characterized by degradation of the supporting tissue and bone in the oral cavity. Treatment modalities seek to facilitate periodontal rehabilitation while simultaneously preventing further gingival tissue recession and potentially bone atrophy. The aim of this study was to compare two differently sourced membranes, a resorbable piscine collagen membrane and a porcine‐derived collagen membrane, in the repair of soft tissue defects utilizing a preclinical canine model. This in vivo component consisted of 10 beagles which were subjected to bilateral maxillary canine mucogingival flap defects, as well as bilateral soft tissue defects (or pouches) with no periodontal ligament damage in the mandibular canines. Defects received either a piscine‐derived dermal membrane, (Kerecis® Oral, Ísafjörður, Iceland) or porcine‐derived dermal membrane (Geistlich Mucograft®, Wolhusen, Switzerland) in a randomized fashion (to avoid site bias) and were allowed to heal for 30, 60, or 90 days. Statistical evaluation of tissue thickness was performed using general linear mixed model analysis of variance and least significant difference (LSD) post hoc analyses with fixed factors of time and membrane. Semi‐quantitative analysis employed for inflammation assessment was evaluated using a chi‐squared test along with a heteroscedastic t‐test and values were reported as mean and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. In both the mucogingival flap defects and soft tissue gingival pouches, no appreciable qualitative differences were observed in tissue healing between the membranes. Furthermore, no statistical differences were observed in the thickness measurements between piscine‐ and porcine‐derived membranes in the mucogingival flap defects (1.05 mm [±0.17] and 1.29 mm [±0.17], respectively [p = .06]) or soft tissue pouches (1.36 mm [±0.14] and 1.47 mm [±0.14], respectively [p = .27]), collapsed over time. Independent of membrane source (i.e., piscine or porcine), similar inflammatory responses were observed in both the maxilla and mandible at the three time points (p = .88 and p = .79, respectively). Histologic and histomorphometric evaluation results indicated that both membranes yielded equivalent tissue responses, remodeling dynamics and healing patterns for the mucogingival flap as well as the soft tissue gingival pouch defect models.