Differences in Mechanical and Physicochemical Properties of Several PTFE Membranes Used in Guided Bone Regeneration

Syed Saad Bin Qasim; Adel A Al-Asfour; Moosa Abuzayeda; Ahmed M Mohamed; Branko Trajkovski; Colin Alexander Murray; Gregor-Georg Zafiropoulos

doi:10.3390/ma16030904

Differences in Mechanical and Physicochemical Properties of Several PTFE Membranes Used in Guided Bone Regeneration

Materials (Basel). 2023 Jan 17;16(3):904. doi: 10.3390/ma16030904.

Authors

Syed Saad Bin Qasim¹, Adel A Al-Asfour², Moosa Abuzayeda³, Ahmed M Mohamed⁴, Branko Trajkovski⁵, Colin Alexander Murray⁶, Gregor-Georg Zafiropoulos²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Bioclinical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat 13110, Kuwait.
² Department of Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat 13110, Kuwait.
³ Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, MBR University, Dubai P.O. Box 505055, United Arab Emirates.
⁴ Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Kuwait University, Safat 13060, Kuwait.
⁵ Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat 13110, Kuwait.
⁶ Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, University of Sharjah, Sharjah P.O. Box 27272, United Arab Emirates.

Abstract

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^TM 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 ^TM TXT-200. These differences may potentially affect the clinical outcomes of dental GBR procedures.

Keywords: PTFE membranes; computerized tomography/CT; guided bone regeneration/GBR; micro-CT; nano-CT; physicochemical properties; porosity.

Grants and funding

This research received no external funding.