The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 4 ( April, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Microbiological and FE-SEM Assessment of d-PTFE Membrane Exposed to Oral Environment after Alveolar Socket Preservation Managed with Granular nc-HA

Giulia Mazzucchi, Marco Lollobrigida, Domenica Laurito, Francesca Berlutti, Giorgio Serafini, Alberto De Biase

Keywords : Alveolar socket preservation, Bacterial contamination, Bone graft, Dense polytetrafluoroethylene, Nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite

Citation Information : Mazzucchi G, Lollobrigida M, Laurito D, Berlutti F, Serafini G, Biase AD. Microbiological and FE-SEM Assessment of d-PTFE Membrane Exposed to Oral Environment after Alveolar Socket Preservation Managed with Granular nc-HA. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (4):404-409.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2805

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 25-06-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim: The aim of this study was to analyze, by the aid of microbiological analysis and the field emission scanning electron microscopical (FESEM) analysis, the role of high-density polytetrafluoroethylene (d-PTFE) membranes in avoiding the microbial colonization of a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (nc-HA) bone graft and the involvement of this colonization in the healing process. Materials and methods: Six patients underwent extraction of unrecoverable teeth, and a socket preservation technique was carried out with nc-HA synthetic bone graft and then covered with a d-PTFE membrane. After 28 days from surgery, FE-SEM analysis and BioTimer assay technique to assess the microbiological count of streptococci species were carried out. Data were collected and analyzed by the Student’s t test (confidence interval: 95%). Results: The mean amount of bacteria measured on the upper side of the membrane was 6.52 ± 0.50 CFU, while on the lower side, it was 6.59 ± 0.40 CFU. Significant differences were not found between the two sides of the membrane or between the different sectors (p > 0.05). The FE-SEM analysis revealed structured biofilms on both sides of the membrane: species of cocci, bacilli, and fusobacteria were recognizable in occasional settled vegetations. Conclusion: Since the amount of bacteria found was low, the improved impermeability of the d-PTFE membrane permitted the healing process to proceed uneventful and without signs of infection or inflammation. Clinical relevance: The infection of the graft site could lead to a failure of the socket preservation technique which could delay or compromise the rehabilitation following procedures. The use of d-PTFE can improve the bone regeneration thanks to its antimicrobial properties.

  1. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, et al. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003;23(4):313–323.
  2. Stumbras A, Kuliesius P, Januzis G, et al. Alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction using different bone graft materials and autologous platelet concentrates: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2019;10(1):e2. DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2019.10102.
  3. De Biase A, Guerra F, Cipriano L, et al. Subantral filling by deantigenated heterologous bone and immediate fixture placement. Minerva Stomatol 2005;54(1–2):99–108.
  4. Korzinskas T, Jung O, Smeets R, et al. In vivo analysis of the biocompatibility and macrophage response of a non-resorbable PTFE membrane for guided bone regeneration. Int J Mol Sci 2018;19(10):2952. DOI: 10.3390/ijms19102952.
  5. Retzepi M, Donos N. Guided bone regeneration: biological principle and therapeutic applications. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21(6): 567–576. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01922.x.
  6. Irinakis T. Rationale for socket preservation after extraction of a single-rooted tooth when planning for future implant placement. J Can Dent Assoc 2006;72(10):917–922.
  7. Trobos M, Juhlin A, Shah FA, et al. In vitro evaluation of barrier function against oral bacteria of dense and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membranes for guided bone regeneration. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20(5):738–748. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12629.
  8. Machtei EE. The effect of membrane exposure on the outcome of regenerative procedures in humans: a meta‐analysis. J Periodontol 2001;72(4):512–516. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2001.72.4.512.
  9. Maki DG, Weise CE, Sarafin HW. A semiquantitative culture method for identifying intravenous-catheter-related infection. N Engl J Med 1977;296(23):1305–1309. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM197706092962301.
  10. Rosa L, Lepanto MS, Cutone A, et al. BioTimer assay as complementary method to vortex-sonication-vortex technique for the microbiological diagnosis of implant associated infections. Sci Rep 2019;9(1):7534. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-44045-1.
  11. Guarnieri R, Di Nardo D, Gaimari G, et al. One-stage lasermicrotextured implants immediately placed in the inter-radicular septum of molar fresh extraction sockets associated with GBR technique. A case series study. J Clin Exp Dent 2018;10(10): e996–e1002. DOI: 10.4317/jced.54705.
  12. Sun DJ, Lim HC, Lee DW. Alveolar ridge preservation using an open membrane approach for sockets with bone deficiency: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;21(1):175–182. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12668.
  13. Ronda M, Rebaudi A, Torelli L, et al. Expanded vs dense polytetrafluoroethylene membranes in vertical ridge augmentation around dental implants: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25(7):859–866. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12157.
  14. Bartee BK. A membrane and graft technique for ridge maintenance using high-density polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (n-PTFE) and hydroxylapatite: report of four cases. Tex Dent J 1995;112(5):11–16.
  15. Faciola Pessôa de Oliveira PG, Pedroso Bergamo ET, Bordin D, et al. Ridge architecture preservation following minimally traumatic exodontia techniques and guided tissue regeneration. Implant Dent 2019;28(4):319–328. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000886.
  16. Rosa L, Cutone A, Coletti M, et al. Biotimer assay: a reliable and rapid method for the evaluation of central venous catheter microbial colonization. J Microbiol Methods 2017;143:20–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2017.09.016.
  17. de Carvalho Formiga M, Dayube URC, Chiapetti CK, et al. Socket preservation using a (Dense) PTFE barrier with or without xenograft material: a randomized clinical trial. Materials 2019;12(18):E2902. DOI: 10.3390/ma12182902.
  18. Ratnayake JTB, Mucalo M, Dias GJ. Substituted hydroxyapatites for bone regeneration: a review of current trends. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2017;105(5):1285–1299. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.33651.
  19. Chitsazi MT, Shirmohammadi A, Faramarzie M, et al. A clinical comparison of nano-crystalline hydroxyapatite (Ostim) and autogenous bone graft in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011;16(3):e448–e453. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.16.e448.
  20. Scarano A, Lorusso F, Santos de Oliveira P, et al. Hydroxyapatite block produced by sponge replica method: mechanical, clinical and histologic observations. Materials (Basel) 2019;12(19):3079. DOI: 10.3390/ma12193079.
  21. Laurito D, Lollobrigida M, Gianno F, et al. Alveolar ridge preservation with nc-HA and d-PTFE membrane: a clinical, histologic, and histomorphometric study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2017;37(2):283–290. DOI: 10.11607/prd.2731.
  22. Laurito D, Cugnetto R, Lollobrigida M, et al. Socket preservation with d-PTFE membrane: histologic analysis of the newly formed matrix at membrane removal. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2016;36(6):877–883. DOI: 10.11607/prd.2114.
  23. Fotek PD, Neiva RF, Wang HL. Comparison of dermal matrix and polytetrafluoroethylene membrane for socket bone augmentation: a clinical and histologic study. J Periodontol 2009;80(5):776–785. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2009.080514.
  24. Wen SC, Barootchi S, Huang WX, et al. Time analysis of alveolar ridge preservation using a combinations of mineralized bone-plug and dense-polytetrafluoroethylene membrane: a histomorphometric study. J Periodontol 2020;91(2):215–222. DOI: 10.1002/JPER.19-0142.
  25. Krauser JT. High-density PTFE membranes: uses with root-form implants. Dent Implantol Update 1996;7(9):65–69.
  26. Carbonell JM, Mar tin IS, Santos A, et al. High-density polytetrafluoroethylene membranes in guided bone and tissue regeneration procedures: a literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;43(1):75–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2013.05.017.
  27. van Houte J, Green DB. Relationship between the concentration of bacteria in saliva and the colonization of teeth in humans. Infect Immun 1974;9(4):624–630. DOI: 10.1128/IAI.9.4.624-630.1974.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.