Background:

DRJ

Dent Res J

Dental Research Journal

1735-3327 2008-0255

Medknow Publications Pvt Ltd

India

DRJ-11-429

10.4103/1735-3327.139415

Original Article

Emdogain effect on gingival fibroblast adhesion in bioabsorbable and non-resorbable barrier membranes: An in vitro study

Barekatain

Mehrdad

Mafi

Morvarid

Amini

Shirin

Farhad

Shirin Z

Department of Restorative Dentistry, Khorasgan Islamic Azad Dental School, Ahvaz, Iran Department of Periodontics, Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran Department of Periodontics, Khorasgan Islamic Azad Dental School, Isfahan, Iran Department of Periodontics, Khorasgan Islamic Azad Dental School, Isfahan, Iran

Address for correspondence:Morvarid Mafi, Department of Periodontics, Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran Morvarid.ltk@gmail.com

Jul–Aug 2014

11 4 429 435

2014

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background:

Tissue engineering represents very exciting advances in regenerative medicine; however, periodontal literature only contains few reports. Emdogain (EMD) consists of functional molecules that have shown many advantages in regenerative treatments. This study investigated EMD effect on gingival fibroblast adhesion to different membranes.

Materials and Methods:

Two dense polytetrafluoroethylene membranes (GBR-200, TXT-200), Alloderm and a collagenous membrane (RTM Collagen) were used in this experimental study. Each membrane was cut into four pieces and placed at the bottom of a well in a 48-well plate. 10 μg/mL of EMD was added to two wells of each group.Two wells were left EMD free. Gingival fibroblasts were seeded to all the wells. Cell adhesion was evaluated by means of a Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope after 24 hours incubation. Data was analyzed by independent t-test, one-way and two-way ANOVA and post hoc LSD test. P < 0.05 in independent t-test analysis and P < 0.001 in one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA and post hoc LSD analysis was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Alloderm had the highest cell adhesion capacity in EMD+ group and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). In EMD- group, cell adhesion to TXT-200 and Alloderm was significantly higher than GBR-200 and collagenous membrane (P < 0.001).

Conclusion:

This study showed that EMD may decrease the cell adhesion efficacy of GBR-200, TXT-200 and collagenous membrane but it can promote this efficacy in Alloderm. It also showed the composition of biomaterials, their surface textures and internal structures can play an important role in their cell adhesion efficacy.

Alloderm cell adhesion emdogain guided tissue regeneration polytetrafluroethylene

</sec> <sec> <title>Introduction

The main goal of periodontal treatment is to control the inflammation in periodontal tissues and to regenerate the lost tissues predictably. To meet this goal it is critical to guide the tissues capable of regeneration. ¹, ², ³Guided tissue regeneration is an accepted method for enhancement of lost periodontal tissue. In this technique a barrier membrane is used to prevent epithelial cell migration and stabilization of the clot into the defect. This prevention results in the migration of periodontal ligament cells and osteoblasts into defect and these cells are known to be responsible for tissue regeneration. ⁴Different types of barrier membranes are introduced that had shown favorable results due to different studies. ⁵These membranes are different in composition and structure, but all of them prevent the migration of epithelial and gingival connective tissue cells into the defect and ideally, a barrier membrane should enhance the cell attachment and migration of the progenitor cells. ⁵, ⁶, ⁷, ⁸, ⁹, ¹⁰Wound healing is a complex process which includes cell migration, cell attachment to various extracellular matrix components, and cell proliferation. ¹¹, ¹²Cell attachment process is a four-step sequence which includes adsorption of glycoproteins to the substrate surface, cell contact, attachment, and spreading. ⁹, ¹⁰Cell proliferation begins after these events. ⁵Tissue integration property ensures the stabilization of the wound and inhibits the migration of epithelial cells, which results in better gain of clinical attachment levels. ¹³, ¹⁴, ¹⁵

According to their degradation characteristics, barrier membranes are divided into two groups of resorbable and non-resorbable membranes. Collagen is the most common material used as resorbable membranes. ⁵It facilitates hemostasis and wound stability by promotion of platelet aggregation along with fibroblast migration which accelerates wound closure, ¹⁶, ¹⁷but collagenous membranes are not stiff enough to resist soft tissue pressure during healing. ¹⁶, ¹⁸

Polytetrafluroethylene (PTFE) is the main composition of non-resorbable membranes. ¹⁹Although their biocompatibility and positive effect on bone regeneration was shown, but a second surgery is required for their removal which may traumatize the newly formed immature periodontal tissue and causes patient discomfort and increases the treatment time and cost. ²⁰Also, the membrane stiffness may result in tissue dehiscence which is the main reason of treatment failure 3 weeks after membrane placement and exposes the membrane which leads to bacterial infection and decrease in the levels of gained clinical attachment. ²¹, ²², ²³, ²⁴An alternative to an expanded PTFE membrane is a high-density polytetrafluroethylene (d-PTFE) membrane which is commercially available as TXT-200 and GBR-200. High-density polytetrafluroethylene membranes have small porosities, so bacterial contamination is eliminated and therefore there is no need of primary closure when they are being used and they can be left exposed to the oral cavity. ²⁵, ²⁶, ²⁷, ²⁸

The acellular dermal matrix (Alloderm) was originally introduced in medicine for reconstructive plastic surgeries but is also used in dentistry in various periodontal procedures like root coverage and keratinized tissue augmentation around teeth and implants. ²⁹, ³⁰, ³¹It has many advantages, but the absence of cells and vessels makes tissue incorporation slower, therefore, attempts of culturing fibroblasts on Alloderm were performed to achieve early wound healing and decrease wound contraction in periodontium. ³², ³³, ³⁴, ³⁵

Fibroblasts play an important role in the healing process. It has been shown that the key factor in the success of regenerative treatment is the recruitment or delivery of cells to the defect site and the production of suitable extracellular matrix along with the periodontal tissues. ³⁶, ³⁷

Introduction of specific cell adhesion molecules to the membrane surfaces may lead to specific tissue responses. Different growth factors and proteins have been introduced and one of them is enamel matrix derivatives. A commercially available product of enamel matrix derivatives is called Emdogain ^®(EMD). It is an acidic extract of low molecular weight procine enamel proteins mainly amelogenin and a propylene glycol alginate vehicle. ³⁸, ³⁹Different studies showed that EMD enhances the adhesion, proliferation, and matrix production of periodontal ligament fibroblasts, stimulates cell growth, and production of insulin growth factor-1 and transforming growth factor-β1 in periodontal ligament cells although it has no appreciable effect on osteoblastic differentiation and has no effect on epithelial cells. ³⁷, ³⁸All of the described characteristics of EMD make it a suitable functional material for regenerative treatments. Therefore, its effects on cell adhesion to different materials were investigated in the present study.

There was also no available study that had compared the fibroblast adhesion among TXT-200, GBR-200, Alloderm, and collagenous membrane (RTM Collagen, Cytoplast ^®) or the effect of EMD on fibroblast attachment to these common barrier membranes. The present study was performed to compare cell adhesion among the prementioned membranes and also to investigate the effect of EMD on gingival fibroblast attachment.

Materials and Methods

For this experimental in vitro study, gingival fibroblast cells (NCBI Codece C165) were provided by Pasteur Institute of Iran. Cells were cultured in a culture flask and cultured in the presence of Dulbecco′s modified Eagle medium (DMEM, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) containing 10% Fetal Calf Serum and 100 μg/ml of penicillin, streptomycin, and amphotericin B. The flask was kept in 37°C in a 5% CO ₂atmosphere in an incubator with humidity. The medium was changed twice a week. Cells were cultured for 3 weeks and passaged for five times.

Four different barrier membranes were used in this study. Two non-resorbable dense polytetrafluoroethylene membranes GBR-200 (GBR1224, LOT: 2541) (Cytoplast®, Osteogenic Biomedical, Lubbock, TX, USA), TXT-200 (TXT1224, LOT: 3688) (Cytoplast®), RTM Collagen (RTM2030, LOT:C2030263) (Cytoplast®) and acellular dermal matrix (ADM, 302111, LOT: B42234) (Alloderm, Biohorizons, Birmingham, AL, USA).

Each membrane was cut into two 6×6-mm pieces and washed with sterile saline solution according to the supplier′s instructions. In RTM Collagen and ADM groups, membranes were washed with sterile saline solution until the protect paper was floating. A 48 wells culture plate was used in this experiment. Five groups of four close wells were selected. Four groups were used for membranes (each group containing four wells for each membrane). All of the membranes were adapted at the bottom of the selected group of wells. No membrane was added to the fifth group and it served as a control group to check the growth of seeded cells. 10 μg/mL of EMD (LOT: C2822, Emdogain®, Straumann, Malmö, Sweden) was added to two wells of each group (EMD+) and two wells were left without any EMD (EMD-). Cells were seeded at a density of 100,000 cell/well on the membranes. Plate was placed in a 37°C incubator with humidity and 5% CO ₂atmosphere for 24 hours. The growth of seeded cells in the fifth group was evaluated by means of a light microscope.

Then cells were washed four times with phosphate buffer saline (PBS) to remove non-adherent cells. The membranes were fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde for 2 hours, washed five times with distilled water for 20 minutes, treated with 1% osmium tetroxide for 1 hour, washed again five times with distilled water for 20 minutes and finally dehydrated through a series of graded ethanol solutions and left for 24 hours in room temperature to dry. To finish the process, they were coated with gold and analyzed with Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (Hittachi s4160, Stanford, CA, USA). An operator not aware of the experimental set up analyzed the membranes with SEM. Each membrane was divided into four intellectual parts under SEM with ×300 magnifications and one image was taken from each part. Another two observers totally unaware of the experiment counted the cells on each image and if there was a difference, the least cell count was recorded.

Data was analyzed by independent t-test, one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA, and post hoc LSD test with SPSS18 (version 18;SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA). P < 0.05 in independent t-test analysis and P < 0.001 in one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA, and post hoc LSD analysis was considered statistically significant.

Results

Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3and Figure 4illustrates the membranes in EMD- and EMD+ groups under SEM with ×300 magnifications and Table 1shows the gained data after cell counting process by two observes. Figure 1

SEM illustration of GBR-200 membrane, a- EMD- group, b- EMD+ group

Figure 1

Figure 2

SEM illustration of TXT-200 membrane, a- EMD- group, b- EMD+ group

Figure 2

Figure 3

SEM illustration of RTM Collagen membrane, a- EMD- group, b- EMD+ group

Figure 3

Figure 4

SEM illustration of ADM, a- EMD- group, b- EMD+ group

Figure 4

{Table 1}

Figure 5shows the mean of attached gingival fibroblasts to the barrier membranes used in this study in EMD+ and EMD- groups. Figure 5

Mean of attached cells to membranes in EMD+ and EMD- groups

Figure 5

Two-way ANOVA test showed the membrane type (P < 0.001) and the presence of Emdogain (P = 0.04) affect the gingival fibroblast adhesion efficacy.

The quality of cell adhesion to each membrane in EMD+ and EMD- groups was evaluated by independent t-test and it was shown that cell adhesion in GBR-200 was slightly higher in EMD- group, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.060). On the other hand, cell adhesion to TXT-200 membrane was higher in EMD- group and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.020). Cell adhesion to RTM Collagen showed no significant difference between EMD+ and EMD- groups (P = 0.310). Unlike other membranes, ADM showed higher cell adhesion efficacy in EMD+ group and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.004). All of the above results are illustrated in Figure 6. Figure 6

Mean of attached cells in EMD+ and EMD- groups to the studied membranes

Figure 6

One-way ANOVA also showed that ADM has the highest cell adhesion capacity in EMD+ group and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). It was also shown that in EMD- group gingival fibroblasts adhesion to TXT-200 and ADM is statistically significantly higher in comparison to GBR-200 and RTM Collagen (P < 0.001).

Post hoc LSD test was used to compare membranes two by two. As it is shown in Figure 3, this test revealed when EMD is present, cell adhesion to ADM is higher than GBR-200 (P < 0.001), TXT-200 (P < 0.001), and RTM Collagen (P < 0.001). This test also showed when EMD is not present, cells significantly adhere to TXT-200 more than RTM Collagen (P < 0.001) and GBR-200 (P < 0.001). Also when EMD was not present, cell adhesion to TXT-200 was slightly higher than ADM, but it was not statistically significant (P = 0.156).

Discussion

Tissue engineering represents very exciting advances in regenerative medicine; however, periodontal literature only contains few reports. ⁴⁰, ⁴¹, ⁴², ⁴³, ⁴⁴ADM has been shown as an useful material in gingival augmentation. ³⁷It has many advantages, but the absence of cells and vessels makes tissue incorporation slower. ³⁶In an attempt to solve this problem, fibroblasts were cultured on Alloderm as an alternative to achieve early wound healing and decrease wound contraction in periodontium. ³², ³³, ³⁴, ³⁵In this study, EMD was used to enhance the gingival fibroblast adhesion to different membranes including Alloderm.

The highest cell efficacy in all of the studied groups belonged to TXT-200 in absence of EMD followed by ADM in the presence of EMD and then ADM in the absence of EMD. When EMD was not present, GBR-200 had slightly higher cell adhesion in comparison to the presence of EMD, but this difference was not significant (P = 0.060). Same happened to TXT-200, but the difference was significant (P = 0.02). Cell adhesion to RTM Collagen was slightly higher when EMD was present but the difference was not significant in comparison to the absence of EMD (P = 0.310).

The difference in the cell adhesion efficacy when EMD is present can be related to its mitogenic properties. Bertl et al. ⁴⁵observed that 0.1-50 μg/mL of EMD promotes cell migration in the wound healing process and it is inhibited at 100 μg/mL. Also, in other studies it was reported that the EMD with the concentration of 25 μg/mL and lower leads to better results, ⁴⁶, ⁴⁷, ⁴⁸so in the present study the concentration of EMD was considered 10 μg/mL for the EMD+ groups.

Hoang et al. ⁴⁹had shown that under physiologically relevant conditions, amelogenin (the main composition of EMD) does not bind to collagen. Van der Pauw et al. ⁴⁸declared that with collagen as a substratum, EMD has an inhibitory influence on periodontal ligament cells attachment and spreading. Lyngstadaas et al. ⁵⁰found a five-fold increase in cell adhesion on plates coated with EMD. These conflicting results may be due to the higher concentration of EMD (500 μg/mL) which was used by these authors.

In the present study, cell adhesion to RTM Collagenmembrane showed no significant difference in EMD+ and EMD- groups which was similar to some of the mentioned studies. ⁴⁹, ⁵⁰ADM which has a collagenous composition showed higher cell adhesion efficacy in the presence of EMD. This result was similar to Lyngstadaas et al. ⁵⁰study but the concentration of EMD which was used in the present study (10 μg/mL) was different form theirs (500 μg/mL). It can be concluded that ADM, per se has a good cell adhesion efficacy. It is derived from human skin and is prepared by a controlled process that removes epidermis and the cells from the dermis but leaves the basement membrane and extracellular matrix organization and collagen and elastin fibers undamaged. ²⁹, ³²Although RTM Collagen is a collagenous membrane, but similarity of ADM structure to human skin may be the reason of its better cell adhesion efficacy in comparison with RTM Collagen.

In EMD- groups, TXT-200 showed statistically higher cell adhesion in comparison to GBR-200 (P < 0.001) but in the presence of EMD this difference was not significant (P = 0.118). Although their composition is the same and they are both made of dense polytetrafluoroethylene, but their surface texture is different. TXT-200 has a roughened surface that is caused by the presence of macro-porosities on its surface but GBR-200 lacks these porosities Figure 1and Figure 2. It seems that EMD may cover the porosities of TXT-200and decrease the cell adhesion efficacy of this material.

These results show that surface texture and material structure play an important role on the cell adhesion efficacy. Cell adhesion affects the tissue integrity efficacy of biomaterials and higher tissue integrity efficacy results in better gain of clinical attachment levels. ¹³, ¹⁴, ¹⁵

Conclusion

Within the limits of the present study, it is shown that the membranes used in this study affect cell adhesion, proliferation and differentiation of gingival fibroblasts. Also, EMD may lower the cell adhesion efficacy of GBR-200, TXT-200, and RTM Collagen but it can promote this efficacy in ADM. When membranes are used without EMD, TXT-200 shows the highest cell adhesion efficacy followed by ADM without a statistically significant difference.

This study also showed not only composition of biomaterials, but also their surface texture and internal structures may play an important role in their cell adhesion efficacy.

The authors are grateful to Dr. Omid Moghaddas (Islamic Azad Dental School of Tehran, Iran) for his precious concepts and Dr. Fatemeh Rahbarizadeh, Dr. Farnaz Jafari and Eng. Mohammad Mohaghegh (Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran) for their cooperation in this study.

Kasaj

Reichert

Götz

Röhrig

Smeets

Willershausen

In vitro evaluation of various bioabsorbable and nonresorbable barrier membranes for guided tissue regeneration

Head Face Med 2008 4 22

Gottlow

Guided tissue regeneration using bioresorbable and non-resorbable devices: Initial healing and long-term results

J Periodontol 1993 64 1157 65

Tatakis

Promsudthi

Wikesjö

Devices for periodontal regeneration

Periodontol 2000 1999;19 59 73

Caton

DeFuria

Polson

Nyman

Periodontal regeneration via selective cell repopulation

J Periodontol 1987 58 546 52

Wang

Miyauchi

Takata

Initial attachment of osteoblasts to various guided bone regeneration membranes: An in vitro study

J Periodontal Res 2002 37 340 4

Nyman

Gottlow

Karring

Lindhe

The regenerative potential of the periodontal ligament.An experimental study in the monkey

J ClinPeriodontol 1982 9 257 65

Melcher

On the repair potential of periodontal tissues

J Periodontol 1976 47 256 60

Grinnell

Cellular adhesiveness and extracellular substrata

Int Rev Cytol 1978 53 65 144

Speth

Linssen

Beex

Boezeman

Haanen

Cellular and plasma pharmacokinetics of weekly 20-mg 4′-epi-adriamycin bolus injection in patients with advanced breast carcinoma

Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1986 18 78 82

Burridge

Molony

Kelly

Adhesion plaques: Sites of transmembrane interaction between the extracellular matrix and the actin cytoskeleton

J Cell Sci Suppl 1987 8 211 29

Rodrigues

Marchesan

Coletta

Novaes AB

Grisi

Souza

Effects of enamel matrix derivative and transforming growth factor-beta1 on human periodontal ligament fibroblasts

J Clin Periodontol 2007 34 514 22

Rincon

Haase

Bartold

Effect of Emdogain on human periodontal fibroblasts in an in vitro wound-healing model

J Periodontal Res 2003 38 290 5

Lindhe

Westfelt

Nyman

Socransky

Haffajee

Long-term effect of surgical/non-surgical treatment of periodontal disease

J Clin Periodontol 1984 11 448 58

Slots

Jorgensen

Effective, safe, practical and affordable periodontal antimicrobial therapy: Where are we going, and are we there yet?

Periodontol 2000 2002;28 298 312

Albandar

Muranga

Rams

Prevalence of aggressive periodontitis in school attendees in Uganda

J Clin Periodontol 2002 29 823 31

Monteiro

Macedo

Balducci

Polyurethane and PTFE membranes for guided bone regeneration: Histopathological and ultrastructural evaluation

Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010 15 e401 6

Bashutski

Wang

Periodontal and endodontic regeneration

J Endod 2009 35 321 8

Döri

Huszár

Nikolidakis

Arweiler

Gera

Sculean

Effect of platelet-rich plasma on the healing of intra-bony defects treated with a natural bone mineral and a collagen membrane

J Clin Periodontol 2007 34 254 61

Gentile

Chiono

Tonda-Turo

Ferreira

Ciardelli

Polymeric membranes for guided bone regeneration

Biotechnol J 2011 6 1187 97

Aurer

Jorgiæ-Srdjak

Membranes for Periodontal Regeneration

Acta Stomatol Croat 2005 39 107 12

Selvig

Kersten

Chamberlain

Wikesjö

Nilvéus

Regenerative surgery of intrabony periodontal defects using ePTFE barrier membranes: Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of retrieved membranes versus clinical healing

J Periodontol 1992 63 974 8

Becker

Handelsman

Ochsenbein

Albrektsson

Guided tissue regeneration for implants placed into extraction sockets: A study in dogs

J Periodontol 1991 62 703 9

Buser

Brägger

Lang

Nyman

Regeneration and enlargement of jaw bone using guided tissue regeneration

Clin Oral Implants Res 1990 1 22 32

Tempro

Nalbandian

Colonization of retrieved polytetrafluoroethylene membranes: Morphological and microbiological observations

J Periodontol 1993 64 162 8

Barber

Lignelli

Smith

Bartee

Using a dense PTFE membrane without primary closure to achieve bone and tissue regeneration

J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007 65 748 52

Bartee

Evaluation of a new polytetrafluoroethylene guided tissue regeneration membrane in healing extraction sites

Compend Contin Educ Dent 1998 19 1256

Bartee

The use of high-density polytetrafluoroethylene membrane to treat osseous defects: Clinical reports

Implant Dent 1995 4 21 6

Bartee

Carr

Evaluation of a high-density polytetrafluoroethylene (n-PTFE) membrane as a barrier material to facilitate guided bone regeneration in the rat mandible

J Oral Implantol 1995 21 88 95

Wainwright

Use of an acellular allograft dermal matrix (AlloDerm) in the management of full-thickness burns

Burns 1995 21 243 8

Barros

Novaes AB

Grisi

Souza

Taba M

Palioto

New surgical approach for root coverage of localized gingival recession with acellular dermal matrix: A 12-month comparative clinical study

J Esthet Restor Dent 2005 17 156 64

Novaes AB

Grisi

Molina

Souza

Taba M

Grisi

Comparative 6-month clinical study of a subepithelial connective tissue graft and acellular dermal matrix graft for the treatment of gingival recession

J Periodontol 2001 72 1477 84

Rodrigues

Oliveira

Novaes AB

Maia

Souza

Palioto

Evaluation of in vitro human gingival fibroblast seeding on acellular dermal matrix

Braz Dent J 2010 21 179 89

Jhaveri

Chavan

Tomar

Deshmukh

Wani

Miller PD

Acellular dermal matrix seeded with autologous gingival fibroblasts for the treatment of gingival recession: A proof-of-concept study

J Periodontol 2010 81 616 25

Novaes AB

Marchesan

Macedo

Palioto

Effect of in vitro gingival fibroblast seeding on the in vivo incorporation of acellular dermal matrix allografts in dogs

J Periodontol 2007 78 296 303

Zhang

Deng

Wang

Yang

Guo

Expansion and delivery of human fibroblasts on micronized acellular dermal matrix for skin regeneration

Biomaterials 2009 30 2666 74

Chang

Liu

Marino

Bartold

Attachment of periodontal fibroblasts to barrier membranes coated with platelet-rich plasma

Aust Dent J 2007 52 227 33

Bartold

McCulloch

Narayanan

Pitaru

Tissue engineering: A new paradigm for periodontal regeneration based on molecular and cell biology

Periodontol 2000 2000;24 253 69

Narani

Owen

Häkkinen

Putnins

Larjava

Enamel matrix proteins bind to wound matrix proteins and regulate their cell-adhesive properties

Eur J Oral Sci 2007 115 288 95

Gestrelius

Lyngstadaas

Hammarström

Emdogain-periodontal regeneration based on biomimicry

Clin Oral Investig 2000 4 120 5

Prato

Rotundo

Magnani

Soranzo

Muzzi

Cairo

An autologous cell hyaluronic acid graft technique for gingival augmentation: A case series

J Periodontol 2003 74 262 7

McGuire

Nunn

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of periodontal applications of a living tissue-engineered human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute I Comparison to the gingival autograft a randomized controlled pilot study

J Periodontol 2005 76 867 80

Wilson TG

McGuire

Nunn

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of periodontal applications of a living tissue-engineered human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute II Comparison to the subepithelial connective tissue graft a randomized controlled feasibility study

JPeriodontol 2005 76 881 9

Mohammadi

Shokrgozar

Mofid

Culture of human gingival fibroblasts on a biodegradable scaffold and evaluation of its effect on attached gingiva: A randomized, controlled pilot study

J Periodontol 2007 78 1897 903

McGuire

Scheyer

Nunn

Lavin

A pilot study to evaluate a tissue-engineered bilayered cell therapy as an alternative to tissue from the palate

J Periodontol 2008 79 1847 56

Bertl

Bruckmann

Dard

Andrukhov

Matejka

Effects of enamel matrix derivative on proliferation/viability, migration, and expression of angiogenic factor and adhesion molecules in endothelial cells in vitro

J Periodontol 2009 80 1622 30

Keila

Nemcovsky

Moses

Artzi

Weinreb

In vitro effects of enamel matrix proteins on rat bone marrow cells and gingival fibroblasts

J Dent Res 2004 83 134 8

Gestrelius

Andersson

Lidström

Hammarström

Somerman

In vitro studies on periodontal ligament cells and enamel matrix derivative

J ClinPeriodontol 1997 24 685 92

Van der Pauw

Van den Bos

Everts

Beertsen

Enamel matrix-derived protein stimulates attachment of periodontal ligament fibroblasts and enhances alkaline phosphatase activity and transforming growth factor beta1 release of periodontal ligament and gingival fibroblasts

J Periodontol 2000 71 31 43

Hoang

Klebe

Steffensen

Ryu

Simmer

Cochran

Amelogenin is a cell adhesion protein

J Dent Res 2002 81 497 500

Lyngstadaas

Lundberg

Ekdahl

Andersson

Gestrelius

Autocrine growth factors in human periodontal ligament cells cultured on enamel matrix derivative

J Clin Periodontol 2001 28 181 8