화학공학소재연구정보센터
홈 로그인 로그아웃 연락처 사이트맵
Macromolecular Research, Vol.22, No.9, 1018-1023, September, 2014
DOI10.1007/s13233-014-2138-2  Export Citation
Comparison of the physical properties and in vivo bioactivities of silkworm-cocoon-derived silk membrane, collagen membrane, and polytetrafluoroethylene membrane for guided bone regeneration
Yong-Yun Ha, Young-Wook Park, HaeYong Kweon1, You-Young Jo1, and Seong-Gon Kim†
  • Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangwon, 210-702, Korea
  • 1Sericultural and Apicultural Materials Division, National Academy of Agricultural Science, Gyeonggi, 441-707, Korea
E-mail:
The aim of this study was to evaluate silkworm-cocoon-derived silk membrane (SM) for application in guided bone regeneration (GBR) and to compare it with commercially available GBR membranes, such as collagen membrane (CM) and polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (PM). The SM, CM, and PM membranes were examined via scanning electron microscopy (SEM), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) analysis, and tensile strength evaluation. Thirty rats were used for the experiments. Critical-sized parietal bone defects (diameter: 8.0 mm) were divided into three groups according to the applied GBR membrane. The rats were sacrificed 4 or 8 weeks after surgery and evaluated by micro-computerized tomography (μ-CT) and histology. The FTIR analysis of the SM was similar to that of the CM. The SEM images showed that the surface characteristics of the SM differed from those of the CM and PM. The SM showed a complex network structure of silk fibers. The wet SM was also more resistant to tensile stress than the wet CM and PM. The μ-CT results of the animal study showed that the bone volume of the SM group was higher than those of the CM and PM groups 4 weeks after the operation (p<0.05). The histological analysis showed that the new bone regeneration of the SM group was higher than those of the CM and PM groups 4 and 8 weeks after the operation (p<0.05). This study demonstrated that the tensile strength of the wet SM was higher than the tensile strength of the wet CM and PM groups. The bone formation of the SM group was higher than those of the other two groups.
Keywords:guided bone regeneration;silk;rat calvarial defect;collagen;polytetrafluoroethylene
  1. Bottino MC, Thomas V, Schmidt G, Vohra YK, Chu TM, Kowolik MJ, Janowski GM, Dent. Mater., 28, 703 (2012)
  2. Bunyaratavej P, Wang HL, J. Periodontol., 72, 215 (2001)
  3. Machtei EE, J. Periodontol., 72, 512 (2001)
  4. Tatakis DN, Promsudthi A, Wikesjo UM, Periodontol. 2000, 19, 59 (1999)
  5. Zahedi S, Legrand R, Brune G, Albert A, Dewe W, Coumans B, Bernard JP, J. Periodontol., 69, 1238 (1998)
  6. Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Sager M, Herten M, Sculean A, Becker J, Clin. Oral Implants Res., 16, 369 (2005)
  7. Speer DP, Chvapil M, Eskelson CD, Ulreich J, J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 14, 753 (1980)
  8. Zhao S, Pinholt EM, Madsen JE, Donath K, J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg., 28, 116 (2000)
  9. Ki CS, Park YH, Jin HJ, Macromol. Res., 17(12), 935 (2009)
  10. Zaoming W, Codina R, Fernandez-Caldas E, Lockey RF, J. Investig. Allergol. Clin. Immunol., 6, 237 (1996)
  11. Kim KH, Jeong L, Park HN, Shin SY, Park WH, Lee SC, Kim TI, Park YJ, Seol YJ, Lee YM, Ku Y, Rhyu IC, Han SB, Chung CP, J. Biotechnol., 120, 327 (2005)
  12. Altman GH, Diaz F, Jakuba C, Calabro T, Horan RL, Chen J, Lu H, Richmond J, Kaplan DL, Biomaterials, 24, 401 (2003)
  13. Yoon H, Kim EY, Kim H, Park CH, Joo CK, Khang G, Macromol. Res., 22(3), 297 (2014)
  14. Lee SW, Kim SG, Song JY, Kweon H, Jo YY, Lee KG, Kang SW, Yang BE, J. Craniofac. Surg., 24, 1927 (2013)
  15. Song JY, Kim SG, Lee JW, Chae WS, Kweon H, Jo YY, Lee KG, Lee YC, Choi JY, Kim JY, Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod., 112, 26 (2011)
  16. Aramwit P, Kanokpanont S, De-Eknamkul W, Srichana T, J. Biosci. Bioeng., 107(5), 556 (2009)
  17. Aramwit P, Towiwat P, Srichana T, Nat. Prod. Commun., 8, 501 (2013)
  18. Panilaitis B, Altman GH, Chen J, Jin HJ, Karageorgiou V, Kaplan DL, Biomaterials, 24, 3079 (2003)
  19. Chen F, Porter D, Vollrath F, Acta Biomater., 8, 2620 (2012)
  20. Kim JH, Oh SH, Lee JH, Biomater. Res., 10, 55 (2006)
  21. Thaller SR, Dart A, Tesluk H, Ann. Plast. Surg., 31, 429 (1993)
  22. Spicer PP, Kretlow JD, Young S, Jansen JA, Kasper FK, Mikos AG, Nat. Protoc., 7, 1918 (2012)
  23. Lundgren D, Nyman S, Mathisen T, Isaksson S, Klinge B, J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg., 20, 257 (1992)
  24. Dupoirieux L, Pourquier D, Picot MC, Neves M, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg., 30, 58 (2001)
  25. Jan A, Sandor GX, Brkovic BB, Peel S, Evans AW, Clokie CM, Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod., 107, 157 (2009)
  26. Odgaard A, Jensen EB, Gundersen HJ, J. Microsc., 157, 149 (1990)
  27. Odgaard A, Bone, 20, 315 (1997)
  28. Foschi D, Corsi F, Cellerino P, Rizzi A, Morandi E, Trabucchi E, Eur. Surg. Res., 33, 16 (2001)
  29. Street J, Bao M, de Guzman L, Bunting S, Peale Jr FV, Ferrara N, Steinmetz H, Hoeffel J, Cleland JL, Daugherty A, van Bruggen N, Redmond HP, Carano RA, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 99, 9656 (2002)
  30. Chen YJ, Wurtz T, Wang CJ, Kuo YR, Yang KD,C Huang H, Wang FS, J. Orthop. Res., 22, 526 (2004)
  31. Unger RE, Sartoris A, Peters K, Motta A, Migliaresi C, Kunkel M, Bulnheim U, Rychly J, Kirkpatrick CJ, Biomaterials, 28, 3965 (2007)
  32. Tsubouchi K, Igarashi Y, Takasu Y, Yamada H, Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem., 69, 403 (2005)
  33. Mandal BB, Kundu SC, Biomaterials, 30, 2956 (2009)
  34. Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Sculean A, Herten M, Scherbaum W, Becker J, Clin. Oral Implants Res., 15, 443 (2004)
  35. Takata T, Wang HL, Miyauchi M, J. Periodont. Res., 36, 322 (2001)
  36. Keten S, Xu ZP, Ihle B, Buehler MJ, Nat. Mater., 9(4), 359 (2010)
  37. Cao Y, Wang BC, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 10(4), 1514 (2009)