Membrane-Free Guided Bone Regeneration Using Electrospun AMP-2 Coated Scaffolds

Le résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is widely used to preserve and regenerate the alveolar ridge for dental implant placement. Traditional approaches employ autografts, allografts, or xenografts combined with barrier membranes, yet each carries drawbacks such as limited supply, potential immune response, or risk of material migration. Electrospun scaffolds, by contrast, present a high surface-to-volume ratio, enhancing cellular adhesion for tight packing into defect sites, and may obviate the need for a membrane. This study investigated the in-vivo performance of a novel electrospun composite scaffold coated with a recombinant bone morphogenetic protein-2 variant (AMP-2; OsteoAdapt), comparing it against a porcine-derived xenograft with collagen membrane, the current clinical standard. METHODS: Bilateral four-walled mandibular defects (10 × 10 mm) were surgically created in 4 adult beagle dogs (N = 16 defects total). Defects were randomized to one of four groups: (i) OsteoAdapt without membrane (OA), (ii) OsteoAdapt with porcine collagen membrane (OA/ZM), (iii) OsteoAdapt mixed with porcine xenograft and covered by membrane (OA/P/ZM), or (iv) porcine xenograft with membrane (CTRL). After 4 weeks of healing, bone regeneration was evaluated using micro-computed tomography for volumetric assessment and histological and histomorphometric analyses to quantify bone and soft tissue percentages. RESULTS: Quantitative histomorphometry revealed no statistically significant differences in bone regeneration between OA, OA/ZM, or OA/P/ZM and the control xenograft group (p0.086) (Figure 1). Similarly, no significant variation in soft tissue proportion was observed across groups (p0.341). Despite these statistical similarities, qualitative evaluation demonstrated distinct healing patterns. Defects treated with OsteoAdapt exhibited more advanced trabecular organization, abundant nucleation sites for bone formation, and consistent bone fill across the defect (Figure 2). Notably, the electrospun scaffold maintained its position within the defect even without a membrane, while groups with membrane coverage (OA/ZM and OA/P/ZM) showed bone extending beyond defect borders. In contrast, the xenograft control displayed sparse woven bone largely restricted to the periphery of the defect. CONCLUSION: The ability of OsteoAdapt to maintain defect fill and induce bone regeneration without the need for membrane support suggests this scaffold could streamline GBR protocols, reducing dependence on adjunctive membranes. These findings highlight the potential of bioactive, fiber-based scaffolds as next-generation grafting materials, warranting further investigation at shorter and longer time points and in clinical contexts. Figure 1. (A) Scanning electron micrograph of electrospun fibers and (B) comparable bone% across groups. Figure 2. Histomicrographs of mandibular defects. Blue arrows indicate electrospun fibers with regenerated bone; yellow indicate trabecular network; red indicate woven bone surrounding particulate graft.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.