4.5 Article

Angiogenesis pattern of native and cross-linked collagen membranes: an immunohistochemical study in the rat

期刊

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 403-409

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01225.x

关键词

angiogenesis; animal study; collagen membrane; cross-linking; GBR; GTR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present study was to immunohistochemically evaluate angiogenesis pattern of native and cross-linked collagen membranes after subcutaneous implantation in rats. Five commercially available and three experimental membranes (VN) were included: (1) BioGide((R)) (BG), (2) BioMend((R)) (BM), (3) BioMend Extend((R)) (BME), (4) Ossix((R)) (OS), (5) TutoDent((R)) (TD), and (6-8) VN(1-3). Specimens were randomly allocated in unconnected subcutaneous pouches (n=4) separated surgically on the back of 40 wistar rats, which were divided into five groups (2, 4, 8, 16, and 24 weeks), including eight animals each. Pattern of angiogenesis was labelled using primary mouse monoclonal antibody to transglutaminase II. For each membrane, the period of time, needed for a complete and homogeneous transmembraneous vascularization, was assessed immunohistomorhometrically. Differences between the membranes were found regarding the initial pattern of transmembraneous angiogenesis, as evaluated 2 weeks following implantation. Mean cross- and longitudinal-sectional area of blood vessels (%) was highest for VN(3) (5.27 +/- 2.73), followed by BG (2.45 +/- 0.88), VN(1) (2.07 +/- 0.29), VN(2) (1.91 +/- 0.55), TD (1.44 +/- 0.53), BME (0.35 +/- 0.29) and BM (0.25 +/- 0.4). In contrast to BG and VN(1-3), BM, BME and TD exhibited a homogeneous transmembraneous formation of blood vessels merely 4-8 weeks following implantation. OS, however, exhibited no signs of angiogenesis throughout the whole study period. Within the limits of the present study, it may be concluded that pattern of transmembraneous angiogenesis markedly differs among the membranes investigated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据