The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Poor Biointegration of Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix Associated with Unfavorable Gingival Healing: A Report of Three Cases

Wassim Manhal, Ghassan Yared, Roula Tahtouh, George Hilal, Claude Ghorra, Didier Lutomski, Sylvie Changotade, Karim Senni, Ronald Younes

Keywords : Acellular dermal matrix, Human gingival fibroblasts, Soft tissue augmentation

Citation Information : Manhal W, Yared G, Tahtouh R, Hilal G, Ghorra C, Lutomski D, Changotade S, Senni K, Younes R. Poor Biointegration of Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix Associated with Unfavorable Gingival Healing: A Report of Three Cases. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (8):951-958.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3167

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 09-11-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aim: The aim of the present work was to explain the poor biointegration of acellular dermal xenogeneic matrix, leading to an unfavorable gingival healing following a grafting procedure for the treatment of soft tissue deficiencies. Background: Numerous works have demonstrated the successful use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in soft tissue augmentation procedures. However, spare human investigations reported adverse healing outcomes at microscopic level. Case description: Three patients showing various soft tissue deficiencies (recession, gingival thickening) requiring a gingival augmentation were grafted using an ADM porcine acellular dermal matrices (pADM) as a soft tissue substitute. For this purpose, appropriate soft tissue augmentation surgeries were performed and the grafted pADM was left for proper healing. Biopsies were harvested from two out of the three patients, respectively, at 11 and 27 weeks in order to conduct a histological evaluation of the pADM\'s doubtful biointegration. Moreover, the ultrastructural analysis of pADM was performed using scanning electron microscopy, and additional histological procedures were used to assess its ability to support human gingival fibroblast cultures. Signs of gingival inflammation persisted several months postoperatively. Histologically, numerous inflammatory cells characterized the grafted site. Indeed, the high number of foreign body giant cell granulomas and the very densified newly formed collagen fibers highlighted a fibrotic process within gingival connective tissue. The ultrastructural and histological analysis showed that pADM was characterized by very thick and dense collagen bundles demonstrating a nonphysiological collagen network organization. Cell culture experiments showed fibroblasts proliferating on the matrix surface, sparing its deeper part, even though the collagen matrix degradation seemed to occur following a gradient from the pADM surface inward. Conclusion: The unfavorable clinical results may be caused by the poor colonization of matrix cells and poor angiogenesis leading to the inadequate biointegration of pADM. Hence, the pADM structure in terms of porosity and degradability should be further investigated. Clinical significance: The present cases highlighted a poor integration of pADM following soft tissue grafting procedures, which was caused by the inadequate ultrastructure of the used pADM. Therefore, despite the utility of such tissue substitutes, their manufacturing improvement could be required to obtain a better biointegration.

PDF Share
  1. Talwar BS. A focus on soft tissue in dental implantology. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2012;12(3):137–142. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0133-x.
  2. Mounssif I, Stefanini M, Mazzotti C, et al. Esthetic evaluation and patient-centered outcomes in root-coverage procedures. Periodontol 2000 2018;77(1):19–53. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12216.
  3. Poli PP, Beretta M, Grossi GB, et al. Risk indicators related to peri-implant disease: an observational retrospective cohort study. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2016;46(4):266–276. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2016.46.4.266.
  4. Schrott AR, Jimenez M, Hwang JW, et al. Five-year evaluation of the influence of keratinized mucosa on peri-implant soft-tissue health and stability around implants supporting full-arch mandibular fixed prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20(10):1170–1177. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01795.x.
  5. Lorenzo R, García V, Orsini M, et al. Clinical efficacy of a xenogeneic collagen matrix in augmenting keratinized mucosa around implants: a randomized controlled prospective clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;23(3):316–324. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02260.x.
  6. Griffin TJ, Cheung WS, Hirayama H. Hard and soft tissue augmentation in implant therapy using acellular dermal matrix. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2004;24(4):352–361. DOI: 10.11607/prd.00.0591.
  7. Cummings LC, Kaldahl WB, Allen EP. Histologic evaluation of autogenous connective tissue and acellular dermal matrix grafts in humans. J Periodontol 2005;76(2):178–186. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2005.76.2.178.
  8. Griffin TJ, Cheung WS, Zavras AI, et al. Postoperative complications following gingival augmentation procedures. J Periodontol 2006;77(12):2070–2079. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2006.050296.
  9. Harris RJ. A short-term and long-term comparison of root coverage with an acellular dermal matrix and a subepithelial graft. J Periodontol 2004;75(5):734–743. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2004.75.5.734.
  10. Caballé-Serrano J, Zhang S, Ferrantino L, et al. Tissue response to a porous collagen matrix used for soft tissue augmentation. Materials (Basel) 2019;12(22). DOI: 10.3390/ma12223721.
  11. Pabst AM, Happe A, Callaway A, et al. In vitro and in vivo characterization of porcine acellular dermal matrix for gingival augmentation procedures. J Periodontal Res 2014;49(3):371–381. DOI: 10.1111/jre.12115.
  12. Schmitt CM, Schlegel KA, Gammel L, et al. Gingiva thickening with a porcine collagen matrix in a preclinical dog model: Histological outcomes. J Clin Periodontol 2019;46(12):1273–1281. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.1319.
  13. Thoma DS, Naenni N, Figuero E, et al. Effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on peri-implant health or disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29(S15):32–49. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13114.
  14. Wei P-C, Laurell L, Lingen MW, et al. Acellular dermal matrix allografts to achieve increased attached gingiva. Part 2. A histological comparative study. J Periodontol 2002;73(3):257–265. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2002.73.3.257.
  15. Rodrigues AZ, Oliveira PT de, Novaes Jr AB, et al. Evaluation of in vitro human gingival fibroblast seeding on acellular dermal matrix. Braz Dent J 2010;21(3):179–189. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402010000300001.
  16. Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Sager M, et al. Biodegradation of differently cross-linked collagen membranes: an experimental study in the rat. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16(3):369–378. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01108.x.
  17. Puisys A, Žukauskas S, Kubilius R, et al. Bone augmentation and simultaneous soft tissue thickening with collagen tissue matrix derivate membrane in an aesthetic area. A case report. Stomatologija 2017;19(2):64–68. PMID: 29243686.
  18. Meltzer JA. Edentulous area tissue graft correction of an esthetic defect: a case report. J Periodontol 1979;50(6):320–322. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1979.50.6.320.
  19. de Sanctis M, Baldini N, Goracci C, et al. Coronally advanced flap associated with a CTG for the treatment of multiple recession defects in mandibular posterior teeth. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011;31(6):623–630. DOI: 10.11607/prd.00.1017.
  20. Allen AL. Use of the supraperiosteal envelope in soft tissue grafting for root coverage. II. Clinical results. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1994;14(4):302–315. DOI: 10.11607/prd.00.0091.
  21. Suchetha A, Phadke PV, Sapna N, et al. Optimising esthetics in second stage dental implant surgery: periodontist's ingenuity. J Dent Implants 2014;4(2):170. DOI: 10.4103/0974-6781.140898.
  22. Matenaers C, Popper B, Rieger A. Practicable methods for histological section thickness measurement in quantitative stereological analyses. PLoS One 2018;13(2):e0192879. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192879.
  23. Kawasaki H. The NanoSuit method: a novel histological approach for examining paraffin sections in a nondestructive manner by correlative light and electron microscopy. Lab Invest 2020;100: 161–173. DOI: 10.1038/s41374-019-0309-7.
  24. Younes R, Ghorra C, Khalife S, et al. Pertinent cell population to characterize periodontal disease. Tissue Cell 2009;41(2):141–150. DOI: 10.1016/j.tice.2008.09.003.
  25. Agarwal C, Tarun Kumar AB, Mehta DS. Comparative evaluation of free gingival graft and AlloDerm® in enhancing the width of attached gingival: a clinical study. Contemp Clin Dent 2015;6(4):483–488. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.169838.
  26. Toledano-Osorio M, Carrasco-Carmona A, Vallecillo C, et al. State of the art on biomaterials for soft tissue augmentation in the oral cavity. Part I: natural polymers-based biomaterials manuel. Polymers 2020;12(8):1850. DOI: 10.3390/polym12081850.
  27. Rothamel D, Benner M, Fienitz T, et al. Biodegradation pattern and tissue integration of native and cross-linked porcine collagen soft tissue augmentation matrices – an experimental study in the rat. Head Face 2014;10:10. DOI: 10.1186/1746-160X-10-10.
  28. Côrtes ADQ, Martins AG, Nociti FH, et al. Coronally positioned flap with or without acellular dermal matrix graft in the treatment of Class I gingival recessions: a randomized controlled clinical study. J Periodontol 2004;75(8):1137–1144. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2004.75.8.1137.
  29. Paolantonio M, Dolci M, Esposito P, et al. Subpedicle acellular dermal matrix graft and autogenous connective tissue graft in the treatment of gingival recessions: a comparative 1-year clinical study. J Periodontol 2002;73(11):1299–1307. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2002.73.11.1299.
  30. Barbeck M, Lorenz J, Kubesch A, et al. Porcine dermis-derived collagen membranes induce implantation bed vascularization via multinucleated giant cells: a physiological reaction? J Oral Implantol 2015;41(6):e238–e251. DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-14-00274.
  31. Zuo Y, Lu S. Dermis, acellular dermal matrix, and fibroblasts from different layers of pig skin exhibit different profibrotic characteristics: evidence from in vivo study. Oncotarget 2017;8(14):23613–23627. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.15389.
  32. Anderson JM, Rodriguez A, Chang DT. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol 2008;20(2):86–100. DOI: 10.1016/j.smim.2007.11.004.
  33. Harris RJ. Root coverage with a connective tissue with partial thickness double pedicle graft and an acellular dermal matrix graft: a clinical and histological evaluation of a case report. J Periodontol 1998;69(11):1305–1311. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1998.69.11.1305.
  34. Heino J. The collagen receptor integrins have distinct ligand recognition and signaling functions. Matrix Biol 2000;19(4):319–323. DOI: 10.1016/s0945-053x(00)00076-7.
  35. Lattouf R, Younes R, Lutomski D, et al. Picrosirius red staining: a useful tool to appraise collagen networks in normal and pathological tissues. J Histochem Cytochem 2014;62(10):751–758. DOI: 10.1369/0022155414545787.
  36. Senni K, Godeau G. Aspect histologique et macromoléculaire de la gencive saine. In: Bouchard P, editor. Parodontologie et Dentisterie Implantaire. Paris: Lavoisier Médecine; 2014. p. 13–18.
  37. Helary C, Abed A, Mosser G, et al. Evaluation of dense collagen matrices as medicated wound dressing for the treatment of cutaneous chronic wounds. Biomater Sci 2015;3(2):373–382. DOI: 10.1039/c4bm00370e.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.