Comparison of Physiochemical Properties and Biocompatiblity of Two Commercially Available Natural Xenogeneic Collagen Membranes: In-vitro Study

Abstract

Introduction: Physical factors like stiffness and surface features are among the characteristics that affect the performance of barrier membranes and determine the results of regenerative processes. A perfect equilibrium between the membrane’s rigidity and mechanical stability guarantees effective periodontal regeneration. The study’s novelty lies in comparing the physical characteristics, namely morphology, tensile strength, wettability, and biological characteristics, namely biocompatibility and enzyme resistance properties, of the Fix-GideTM membrane against the gold standard membrane, Bio-Gide®. Aim: To explore the physical and biological properties of two commercially available barrier membranes in oral tissue regeneration. Materials and Methods: The present in-vitro study compared two commercially available membranes, namely Bio-Gide® and Fix-GideTM. Both membranes are bilayered resorbable membranes, with Bio-Gide composed of porcine dermis Type-I and III collagen and Fix-GideTM of bovine origin. The study was conducted at the Central Leather Research Institute, and the membranes were procured from Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research. Morphological characterisation was done using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Physical properties were evaluated using a tensile strength test, enzyme resistance test, and wettability measurement. Biocompatibility assessment was also performed. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used to run the Mann-Whitney U test to analyse the statistical data obtained in the enzyme resistance test. Results: Biocompatibility assessment showed no cytotoxic profile of both membranes, portraying their biocompatible nature. Morphological analysis using SEM showed the surface of the Bio-Gide® membrane to be considerably smoother than the Fix-GideTM membrane. Both membranes, however, have fibrous and porous features on their inner surfaces. Tensile strength assessment found that the percentage of elongation was better with Bio-Gide (1.7±0.4 and 4.8±0.4) when compared to Fix-Gide (15.8±0.2 and 2.2±0.2) in both wet and dry states, respectively. The enzyme resistance test evaluated in dry and wet settings showed that the membranes, namely, Bio-Gide® membrane exhibited around 29±2% of degradation, whereas the Fix-GideTM exhibited only 18±2%. These mechanical profiles exhibited that the membranes has appreciable differences, although there wasn’t a statistically significant difference between them (p=0.68). According to wettability studies, Bio-Gide is hydrophilic, but Fix-GideTM is hydrophobic. Conclusion: The observations of the present study showed that Fix-Gide had comparable physio-biological properties to that of the Bio-Gide membrane. This supports the suitability of the use of both membranes for various oral tissue regeneration procedures.

Keywords

• guided tissue regeneration
• scanning electron microscopy
• tissue scaffolds
• tissue engineering