Qasim Syed Saad Bin, Al-Asfour Adel A, Abuzayeda Moosa, Mohamed Ahmed M, Trajkovski Branko, Murray Colin Alexander, Zafiropoulos Gregor-Georg
Department of Bioclinical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat 13110, Kuwait.
Department of Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat 13110, Kuwait.
Materials (Basel). 2023 Jan 17;16(3):904. doi: 10.3390/ma16030904.
Non-resorbable PTFE membranes are frequently used in dental-guided bone regeneration (GBR). However, there is a lack of detailed comparative studies that define variations among commonly used PTFE membranes in daily dental clinical practice. The aim of this study was to examine differences in physicochemical and mechanical properties of several recent commercial PTFE membranes for dental GBR (Cytoplast TXT-200, permamem, NeoGen, Surgitime, OsseoGuard-TXT, OsseoGuard-NTXT). Such differences have been rarely recorded so far, which might be a reason for the varied clinical results. For that reason, we analyzed their surface architecture, chemical composition, tensile strength, Young's modulus, wettability, roughness, density, thickness and porosity. SEM revealed different microarchitectures among the non-textured membranes; the textured ones had hexagonal indentations and XPS indicated an identical spectral portfolio in all membranes. NeoGen was determined to be the strongest and OsseoGuard-TXT was the most elastic. Wettability and roughness were highest for Surgitime but lowest for OsseoGuard-NTXT. Furthermore, permamem was the thinnest and NeoGen was identified as the thickest investigated GBR membrane. The defect volumes and defect volume ratio (%) varied significantly, indicating that permamem had the least imperfect structure, followed by NeoGen and then Cytoplast TXT-200. These differences may potentially affect the clinical outcomes of dental GBR procedures.
不可吸收的聚四氟乙烯（PTFE）膜常用于口腔引导骨再生（GBR）。然而，在日常口腔临床实践中，缺乏详细的比较研究来界定常用PTFE膜之间的差异。本研究的目的是检测几种用于口腔GBR的市售PTFE膜（Cytoplast TXT - 200、permamem、NeoGen、Surgitime、OsseoGuard - TXT、OsseoGuard - NTXT）在物理化学和力学性能方面的差异。迄今为止，此类差异鲜有记录，这可能是导致临床结果各异的原因。因此，我们分析了它们的表面结构、化学成分、拉伸强度、杨氏模量、润湿性、粗糙度、密度、厚度和孔隙率。扫描电子显微镜（SEM）显示非纹理化膜之间存在不同的微观结构；纹理化膜有六边形凹痕，X射线光电子能谱（XPS）表明所有膜的光谱组合相同。已确定NeoGen强度最大，OsseoGuard - TXT弹性最大。Surgitime的润湿性和粗糙度最高，而OsseoGuard - NTXT最低。此外，permamem最薄，NeoGen是所研究的GBR膜中最厚的。缺损体积和缺损体积比（%）差异显著，表明permamem的结构缺陷最少，其次是NeoGen，然后是Cytoplast TXT - 200。这些差异可能会潜在影响口腔GBR手术的临床结果。
