Next Article in Journal
The Molecular and Mechanical Characteristics of Biomimetic Composite Dental Materials Composed of Nanocrystalline Hydroxyapatite and Light-Cured Adhesive
Previous Article in Journal
Innovation in Gastroenterology—Can We Do Better?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biomimetics
Volume 7
Issue 2
10.3390/biomimetics7020034
biomimetics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Collagen-Based Biomaterials in Periodontal Regeneration: Current Applications and Future Perspectives of Plant-Based Collagen

by
Thunwa Binlateh
1,
Peungchaleoy Thammanichanon
2,
Pawornwan Rittipakorn
2,
Natthapol Thinsathid
2 and
Paiboon Jitprasertwong
2,*
1
Institute of Research and Development, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand
2
Institute of Dentistry, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biomimetics 2022, 7(2), 34; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7020034
Submission received: 22 February 2022 / Revised: 9 March 2022 / Accepted: 23 March 2022 / Published: 24 March 2022
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Collagen is the most widely distributed protein in human body. Within the field of tissue engineering and regenerative medical applications, collagen-based biomaterials have been extensively growing over the past decades. The focus of this review is mainly on periodontal regeneration. Currently, multiple innovations of collagen-based biomaterials have evolved, from hemostatic collagen sponges to bone/tissue regenerative scaffolds and injectable collagen matrices for gene or cell regenerative therapy. Collagen sources also differ from animal to marine and plant-extracted recombinant human type I collagen (rhCOL1). Animal-derived collagen has a number of substantiated concerns such as pathogenic contamination and transmission and immunogenicity, and rhCOL1 is a potential solution to those aforementioned issues. This review presents a brief overview of periodontal regeneration. Also, current applications of collagen-based biomaterials and their mechanisms for periodontal regeneration are provided. Finally, special attention is paid to mechanical, chemical, and biological properties of rhCOL1 in pre-clinical and clinical studies, and its future perspectives in periodontal regeneration are discussed.

1. Introduction

Periodontal regeneration involves multi-disciplinary approaches towards re-establishment of periodontal ligament, cementum, and alveolar bone surrounding teeth. Success in periodontal regeneration requires the suitable niches for neovascularization, adequate signal molecules, and proliferation and differentiation of the cells involving regeneration [1,2]. Several biomaterials, technologies, and approaches have been identified to produce the favorable environments for regeneration. During the past decade, numerous innovations have occurred in the field of collagen-based biomaterials. Hemostatic collagen sponges, bone/tissue regenerative scaffolds, and injectable collagen matrices for gene or cell regenerative therapy have been developed and improved for regenerative medical applications, including periodontal regeneration. Not only are these innovative collagen-based biomaterials, but the sources of collagen have also differed from animal to marine and plant-derived recombinant human type I collagen (rhCOL1) sources. Therefore, the aim of this review was to present a brief introduction of periodontal regeneration, followed by current applications of collagen-based biomaterials and their underlying mechanism of action. Ultimately, the recent advances of recombinant expression system in plants that have been evolved for a viable source of collagen and its future perspectives in periodontal regeneration will be provide and discussed.

2. Concept of Regeneration in Periodontics

The term regeneration is described as a therapeutic approach involving the replacement or regeneration of damaged human cells and tissues, including organs, to re-establish and restore their normal physiological functions [3]. Regenerative medicine is a translational research integrating a variety of disciplines, such as cell biology, polymer sciences, material sciences, chemistry, medicine, nanotechnology, and manufacturing [4]. In dental practices, this treatment strategy has a long history of use, particularly in periodontal diseases. Tissue regeneration generally requires stemness properties of the tissue. Periodontal tissue has been demonstrated to present stem cells in tissue surrounding teeth, called periodontal ligament (PDL) cells, that possibly involve regeneration of periodontal tissue [5]. PDL is composed of multiple components, including type I collagen fiber bundles, fibroblasts, a group of bone cells found on the surface of alveolar bone, cementoblasts on cementum surface, and mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) [6].
Regeneration requires at least three essential processes: new blood supply or angiogenesis, adequate molecular signaling pathways, and proliferation and differentiation towards the cells that are able to regenerating the damaged tissues [1,2]. During regeneration of periodontal tissue, having sufficient blood supply is extensively needed, since signal molecules that are involved in regeneration will arrive via blood vessels. MSC initially exerts angiogenic effect, which stimulates early formation of granulation tissue and is followed by new vascular network formation [1]. Several angiogenic factors have been revealed in MSC, including IL-8, insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1), platelet-derived growth factor AA (PDGF-AA), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) [7]. These factors induce migration of endothelial lineage for neovascularization [8]. In addition, some studies have revealed trans-differentiation of MSC into distinct phenotypes, including endothelial lineage [9].
After neovascular formation, a variety of necessary signals, such as IL-6, IGF-1, TNF-α, and transforming growth factor β1 (TGF-1β), and cells, including monocytes and lymphocytes can be identified. It is known that TNF-α involves the differentiation of osteoblasts by increased mineralization-related genes (bone morphogenic protein 2; BMP2, runt-related transcription factor 2; RUNX2, alkaline phosphatase; ALP) and mineralization of ECM through NF-κB activation [10]. Meanwhile, IL-6 promotes osteocalcin production in osteoblasts, causing amplification of BMP2 and RUNX2 ligands for synthesizing and generating ECM via JAK/STAT3 signaling pathway. IL-6 also augments osteocalcin production and ALP activity though mTOR pathway [1]. In addition to osteogenic differentiation, MSC is implicated in the remodeling of ECM by inhibited metalloproteinase (MMP)-1 and 8 and increased tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs) using TGF-1β signal [1,11].
On the other hand, secreted IGF-1 contributes to differentiation of fibroblasts and cementoblasts, participating in the secretion of collagen 1 (COL-1) and cementum protein 1 (CEMP-1), respectively, thereby forming collagen fiber and synthesizing radicular cementum at the lesion area of periodontal tissue [1].
Furthermore, the traveling of monocytes and lymphocytes into the area of lesion via new blood vessels is implicated in negative regulation of osteoclast activity in balancing homeostasis of bone remodeling during bone formation. Both cells produce IL-10 that amplifies the levels of osteoprotegerin (OPG), but suppresses expression levels of receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa beta (RANKL), nuclear factor of activated T-cell cytoplasmic 1 (NFATc1), and macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) [12]. As a result, the differentiation and activation of osteoclast are inhibited, thus preventing bone resorption (Figure 1).
In spite of the fact that mesenchymal stem cells in PDL are able to differentiate into fibroblasts, osteoblasts, and cementoblasts [1,10,11], the damaged periodontal tissue does not repair successfully through endogenous regenerative processes after conventional treatment being performed. An endogenous regeneration often results from healing by long junctional epithelial formation [13]. Therefore, it is necessary to explore and develop methods that can induce proper proliferation and differentiation of PDL stem cells with additional capability in protecting soft tissue ingrowth.

3. Current Applications, Mechanism of Action, and Limitations of Collagen-Based Biomaterials in Periodontal Regeneration

The main applications of collagen are as follows (Table 1): collagen plugs/sponges used for being hemostatic materials in the control of bleeding; resorbable collagens applied in oral wound dressing, acceleration of wound healing, and closure for graft and extraction site; and collagen membranes used as barriers to protect epithelial migration/ingrowth for allowing regenerative ability of pluripotent cells at area of lesion to repopulate in periodontal and implant treatments (Figure 2).

3.1. Hemostasis and Wound Healing

Collagen, particularly in type I collagen, is used for oral wound protection with prevented bleeding from the wound, and accelerated endogenous wound healing process [30,31]. Several types and forms of collagen-based products are available, including sponge-like structure, plug-like structure, microfibrillar forms, matrices, scaffold, and drug delivery carrier [30,32,33]. Clinical-based evidence suggests a positive outcome of collagen products. Application of collagen plugs in the third molar extraction resulted in relatively reduced complication rates in comparison to general conditions of previous studies [26,28]. Collagen plugs (CollaPlug®) are used to fill extraction wounds, enhance clot formation, accelerate formation of granulation tissue, and reduce postoperative swelling and pain [26]. Ateloplug, a 100% absorbable collagen sponge, appeared to provide hemostasis when applied to the extraction socket. In addition, collagen-containing dressing showed faster wound healing by deposition of fiber in granulation tissue, accelerated re-epithelization, and promoted remodeling of ECM [27,28].
After being placed, collagen rapidly absorbs blood by generating artificial clot-like structure to stop bleeding, thereby reducing swelling and pain postoperatively. Collagen affects coagulation processes. Once it contacts the blood, collagen provides a three-dimensional matrix via binding with a large number of platelets, causing platelet aggregation. Aggregated platelet is granulated to secrete thromboxane A2 that helps and strengthens the formation of blood clot [34,35]. Later, the collagen degrades and collagen fragments are released to act as mediators of inflammation by recruiting neutrophils and macrophage, and enhancing immune responses [36,37]. One study indicated that the inflammatory process induced by collagen is a robust and sharp response, which is transient and promptly resolves healing of a wound [38]. Several inflammatory cytokines active during immune response, such as IL-8, MCP-1 and VEGF, induce migration of endothelial stem cell lineage for new vessel formation. On the other hand, collagen itself serves as a promoter of angiogenesis. It has been reported that collagen type I has a potent influence of angiogenesis via integrin pathway in vitro and in vivo [39,40]. Moreover, C-peptide fragment of type I collagen is able to recruit endothelial cells in triggering neovascularization during wound healing. Simultaneously, new blood vessels facilitate secretion of multiple cytokines such as TNF-α and IL-6, and growth factors such as TGF-1β and IGF-1, leading to a promotion of differentiation of MSC to fibroblast. Differentiated fibroblasts participate in synthesizing collagen and remodeling of ECM through the regulation MMPs and TIMPs [1,40].

3.2. Guided Bone Regeneration:(GBR)

Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is an established technique extensively used for alveolar ridge augmentation [41]. GBR requires bone substitutes or implants to fill the defect and needs a barrier membrane to maintain space in the bone defect, creating a favorable microenvironment for repopulation of bone cells [18,41]. Ideally, membranes for GBR should prevent non-osseous cells ingrowth and be able to facilitate growth of osseous cells, vascularization of healing tissue, and bone regeneration [42]. Non-resorbable and resorbable membranes are two main types used for GBR. Non-resorbable membranes, such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), expanded PTFE (e-PTFE), titanium (Ti), and ti-reinforced PTFE (Ti-PTFE), eventually need post-operative reopening of the soft tissue for removal of the membranes, a process that is not required for the resorbable membranes [43,44]. Collagen is biodegradable and also facilitates proliferation and differentiation of osteoblasts for osseous regeneration. Collagen membranes are used for guided bone regeneration, acting as an inhibitory barrier against fibroblast or soft tissue ingrowth to allow a suitable niche for bone regeneration, particularly in alveolar bone and ridge defects. Several types of collagen membranes have been developed in combination with several biopolymers to optimize treatment strategies. Collagen membranes show very different ultrastructures, which refer to their physio-chemical and mechanical properties with different biological functions. From the literature, natural biopolymers with a porous micro-scale are more suitable for angiogenesis, nutrient transport, and mineral deposit for bone formation [45,46]. In contrast, nano-scale membranes are excellent for cell attachment and differentiation, and being inhibitory barriers against physical damages and pathogens to maintain the microenvironmental niche for bone regeneration [47,48]. Different ultrastructures also affect their mechanical and chemical properties; a more compact and denser ultrastructure shows a higher time for chemical degradation as indicated by trypsin degradation of a dense structure of multi-directional networks in a Jason® membrane compared to a network of collagen fiber bundles of a Biocollagen® membrane. Moreover, a higher stiffness and Young modulus value were also presented in the denser and more compact ultrastructure of a Jason® membrane compared to a Biocollagen® membrane [46]. Each type of membrane offers both advantages and drawbacks; dentists therefore need to make a decision based on the understanding of treatment strategies and the properties of membrane products.
Plenty of collagen-based membranes are available in the market and have been extensively used in GBR for many clinical situations, including periodontal osseous defects, alveolar bone augmentation, dental implantation, and peri-implantitis. Using CelGroTM, a non-cross-linked type I collagen-based membrane, prevents soft tissue ingrowth and provides a suitable microenvironment to activate ECM of bone and new bone formation. GBR treatment with CelGroTM successfully regenerates new mature bone to stabilize dental implants and crown placement [18]. Moreover, analysis of studies related to use of GBR with collagen membrane in implants showed that this procedure had a high implant survival rate of 98.34% with reduced risk of morbidity and healing time, corrected alveolar ridge, and increased patient comfort [41]. Thus, the presence of collagen membranes and their bioactive functions provides higher levels of bone regeneration and restitution of the defected bone site compared to treatment of the defect without a barrier membrane.
Mechanistically, when collagen membranes are placed, they mainly act as a physical barrier in the prevention of cell ingrowth from surrounding tissue, to create and allow a suitable microenvironment for complete regeneration in the area of lesion [49,50,51]. In its biological participation, it also facilitates the recruitment of CD68-positive monocyte/macrophage cells and periostin-positive osteoprogenitors from surrounding tissues to adhere to the membranes. These cells produce and secrete a variety of pivotal factors such as fibroblast-growth factor 2 (FGF-2), TGF-b, BMP2, RANKL, VEGF, and others. FGF-2 and TGF-b mainly function in regulation of non-osseous tissue remodeling through promoting fibroblast proliferation, stimulating collagen synthesis, and modulating activity of MMPs and TIMPs [42,52]. On the other hand, BMP2 and RANKL activate activity of osteoblasts and osteoclasts, respectively, leading to development of new osseous tissue via bone formation and remodeling processes [53,54]. The presence of VEGF contributes to create new vascularization in the defected area by triggering endothelial lineage migration, proliferation, and differentiation to form new blood vessels, and further maintaining several needed signal molecules for tissue and bone remodeling [42,55].

3.3. Being Carrier and Transport Vehicle of Collagen in Scaffold/Matrix Forms

Collagen is used as carrier or transport vehicle for osteoconductive effect in the form of scaffolds in combination with bone graft materials and substitutes such as demineralized bone matrix [23,24,56,57]. In addition, collagen is also applied as a scaffold/matrix for cell and gene therapies, because it has potential for biocompatibility, degradability, low antigenicity, and cell adhesion in providing three-dimensional distribution [3,58,59].
Regarding to the mechanism of action, collagen acts as an extracellular matrix in providing three-dimensional distribution for cell adhesion. The cells, particularly bone cells for bone graft/substitution or stem cells for cell regenerative therapy, have been proposed to bind with collagen through collagen-binding receptors. Integrins are the major family of cell adhesion receptors involved in cell-collagen binding [60]. In addition to integrins, discoidin domain receptors 1 and 2 (DDR1 and DDR2), leukocyte-associatedimmunoglobulin-likereceptor-1(LAIR-1), and annexin V or anchorin II have also been implicated in cell-collagen binding [49,61,62]. In addition to these receptors, collagen also has receptor-binding sites for cell-binding collagen. Four different sites have been reported; (1) the specific motifs inside triple helix of collagen which represent highly specialized affinity, (2) a common sequence of collagen such as GPO sequence (G: glycine; P: proline; O: hydroxyproline), (3) a cryptic motif of collagen that can be recognized only after being denatured, and (4) a non-collagenous domain (NC) like NC1 domain [60]. Thus, cellular adhesive response to collagen products may depend on the dominance of expressed receptor types on plasma membrane of the cells, and the number and type receptor-binding sites of collagen.

3.3.1. Bone Graft and Substitution

Collagen is used as carrier or transport vehicle for bone graft and as substitution for the regeneration of periodontal tissue in order to augment and reconstruct periodontal and alveolar bone defects. In clinical trials, SmartBoneTM, a common bone graft material comprised of demineralized bone matrix combined with collagen, was utilized in periodontal osseous defect and alveolar ridge augmentation. The data exhibited that after four months of placement, successful osseointegration and new bone formation appeared with vascular connective tissue surrounding it, and new bone was formed with increased alveolar bone dimension [23,24]. However, the poor mechanical and high biodegradable properties of collagen scaffolds limit its application to some extent cases [63]. To overcome these, collagen scaffolds are thus modified by some physical methods or cross-linked by some chemicals and natural/synthetic polymers. For example, a fabricated collagen-chitosan scaffold by polyelectrolyte complexation and a blended collagen with natural protein polymer silk fibroin is beneficial in increasing mechanical properties and lengthening biodegradability of collagen [63,64]. Furthermore, since collagen itself provides an osteoinductive effect, it therefore can be applied as an alternative to allograft-derived materials that are available in the market. It has been reported that these materials have a potential in being a suitable environment for bone mineralization, neovascularization, and growth factor adhesion [65]. However, they are less considered for graft substitution as they exhibit high risk of adverse immune responses and possess poor structural integrity, especially in the long-term application of grafting case studies [50,66].

3.3.2. Gene and Cell Regenerative Therapies

Cell therapy can be described as treatment that introduces new cells into a tissue whereas gene therapy is defined by the use of genetically modified cells to deliver a specific gene of bioactive proteins [3,51]. Collagen products and collagen scaffold/matrix have been utilized in these two therapies to provide structural and biochemical stabilities for newly proper tissue formation [67]. Using collagen as matrix for recombinant adenoviral vectors encoding BMP-7 (Ad-BMP7) in bone tissue engineering around titanium dental implants resulted in sustaining expression for up to 10 days. Treatment of Ad-BMP7 enhanced filling of alveolar bone defects, new bone formation, and new bone-to-implant contact [16]. Furthermore, vector distribution of Ad-encoding platelet-derived growth factor B (PDGF-B) delivered in collagen matrix was localized in the defected area without distant organ involvement. No significant difference of histological evaluation, specific hematological, or blood chemistries were found during investigation [17].
Likewise, a study of periodontal ligament stem cells (PDLSCs) attached to a collagen scaffold revealed extensive coverage of new alveolar bone in ovine and rat periodontal defect models. In human clinical investigation, placement of dental pulp-MSC in a collagen sponge scaffold (Gingistat®) could repair bone defects, following one year of grafting. Histological observation clearly revealed the complete regeneration of alveolar bone at the area of lesion [15]. Therefore, collagen as a delivery system in matrix form is considered safe for possible application in humans for repair and/or regeneration in terms of gene and cell therapies.

3.4. Limitations of Collagen-Based Biomaterials in Periodontal Regeneration

Although those customized collagen products attempted to regenerate periodontal tissues in proper structures, some regenerating functional periodontal tissues are still limited as follow: (1) the fine structures, called Sharpey’s fibers, are not restored, resulting in unstable connection between cementum, PDL, and alveolar bone. With unstable connection, regenerated periodontal tissues incompletely support teeth and bear occlusal force; (2) horizontal alveolar bone loss cannot be completely restored; and (3) long-term stability of regenerated periodontal tissues is commonly reduced. Therefore, novel materials and customized methods that can closely mimic the architectural hierarchy of periodontal tissues are prerequisite to achieve periodontal tissue regeneration, both structurally and functionally.

4. Plant-Based Collagen and Its Perspective

4.1. History

Although collagen used for pharmacological and biomedical applications is historically extracted from animal sources, substantiated concerns have been raised with the risk of infectious disease transmission known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy and biophysical profile of extracted collagen on post-depositional modification [68,69]. Evidence of immunogenic studies also reported that 2–4% of treated population is allergic to bovine and porcine-derived collagen by evoking both cellular and humoral immune responses [69]. Marine-derived collagen, which is successfully extracted form fish skin, scales, and bones, has recently become of interest because of a plentiful source of collagen-containing tissues from the marine food industry and an absence of disease transmission [69]. Biological demonstrations of marine collagen revealed high biodegradability, high biocompatibility, and low immunogenicity [69,70]. However, chemical and mechanical characterizations of marine-derived collagen have been reported to be different from animal collagen in various properties, including lower water solubility, lower melting point, lower viscosity, higher fibrillar proportion of glutamate and alanine, and lower proportion of proline and hydroxyproline contents [69,71,72]. With the noted differences, marine collagens are not excluded from biotechnological use; collagen with a low melting point, low solubility, or others can be modified by additional crosslinking to be suitable for biomaterial and bioengineering applications.
In addition to animal and marine sources, there is a growth in technology producing human collagen from plants through recombinant expression system [73,74,75]. Tobacco plant-based expression of rhCOL1, which drives simultaneous vacuole-targeted expression and post-translation of type I collagen, provides a new source of collagen and can be applied for tissue engineering and regenerative medicines [75]. This collagen is homogenic and has the ability to self-assemble, forming homogenous fibrils that display intact binding sites with other combined materials or bioactive agents [68] (Table 2). In the future, the shortcomings of epidemic diseases, religion restriction, and environmental concerns in using traditional collagen sources might be overcome and substituted by plant-derived collagen production.

4.2. Plant Recombinant Human Collage

Recombinant expression systems have emerged as a potentially alternative synthetic method to produce exogenous human collagen, providing homogenic collagen fibrils without the risk of pathologic infection [73,74,75]. Recombinant expression in prokaryotic and yeast systems were first attempted; however, the systems result in relatively low stability and short fibers. These are likely due to the lack of necessary enzymatic support to produce post-translationally modified collagen [69].
Several plant recombinant systems have been used to express and produce plant-extracted rhCOL1. Expression of recombinant proteins in plant is generated by sorting and targeting recombinant gene expression of the interest proteins to subcellular compartments such as nucleus, cytosol, and chloroplast. A relatively high output system of rhCOL1 has been reported in the tobacco plant (Nicotiana tabacum) [68,69,75]. In this system, two human genes encoding recombinant type I collagen and enzymatic human P4H-a, P4H-b and LH3 genes are targeted and expressed in vacuoles of tobacco plant. Vacuole-targeted expression of five genes can provide procollagen yielding at 1 g/kg of dry tobacco leaves. The isolated protein is decorated by a proportion of hydroxylated proline and lysine residuals (7–10% and 0.7–1%, respectively), and exhibits fibril-forming capacity, thermostability in triple helical structure, and resistance to protease activity up to 39 °C, similar to native human collagen [69,75,77]. Biological properties of the resulting proteins are also similar to human collagen in terms of supporting cellular adhesion and expansion of human cell during tissue repair or regeneration. Furthermore, the extracted protein is highly hydrophilic [68,75], indicating that collagen made from plant recombinant system has physicochemical characterizations identical to those of its natural human collagen without concern of immunogenicity and disease transmission. Hence, plant-derived rhCOL1 may be ideal as biomaterial for biomedical use.

4.3. Medical Studies of Using Plant Recombinant Human Collagen

The homogenous plant-derived rhCOL1 created by vacuole-targeted expression has been investigated as a reliable source material for regeneration. Scaffolding properties of plant-extracted rhCOL1 were determined through electrospinning and freeze-drying in comparison to bovine collagen. Both raw materials could be formed into two common scaffold types, the electrospun nonwoven scaffold and lyophilized sponge, with similar structures. H&E-stained histological sections had no marked differences in skin morphology between engineered skin fabricated with plant-derived rhCOL1 and bovine collagen [81]. Plant-extracted rhCOL1 was safe in using as drug delivery scaffold material. Injection of Arthrex ACP® Tendo (ACP) combined with plant-derived rhCOL1 enabled prolonged release of ACP to the injury site with only one injection [87]. Significantly, plant-derived rhCOL1 supported endothelial, fibroblast, and keratinocyte cell attachment and proliferation at a higher level than a commercial scaffold made of bovine collagen. In addition, activated THP-1 macrophage had approximately two-fold lower IL-1β secretion when exposed to electrospun plant-derived rhCOL1 scaffold compared to the bovine collagen scaffold [81]. Plant-extracted rhCOL1 also showed no immune response in a sensitive assay with human CD4+ T cells, while a higher response was observed in bovine collagen [80].
Shilo et al. demonstrated the ability for wound healing of plant-derived rhCOL1 gel in a rat cutaneous wound model and found that plant-derived rhCOL1 induced a more rapid healing process. Within 21 days, 95% wound closure was observed with enhanced reepithelization and reduced inflammation, whereas 68% closure of wound was achieved by bovine collagen products [84]. Clinical investigation also showed a significantly shorter healing time related to plant-extracted rhCOL1 gel (64 ± 4 days versus 90 ± 11 days) with a significantly greater wound size reduction (78% vs. 50%). In addition, there was no local or systemic adverse events or hypersensitivity for the plant-derived rhCOL1 used [88].
The regenerative potential of plant-derived rhCOL1 was assessed in hydrogel form. Crosslinking the plant-extracted rhCOL1 with 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethyl aminopropyl) carbodiimide and N-hydroxysuccinimide produces a robust and transparent hydrogel without having an effect on the outcome of biocompatibility testing. Histological data showed that stratified corneal epithelium and mucin-positive tear film were fully differentiated and regenerated, respectively [85]. Biomaterials made from plant-derived rhCOL1 are biocompatible, cause zero immune response, are mechanically stable, and promote regeneration of damaged tissues [80,81,84,85,87,88]. Therefore, plant-derived rhCOL1 might eventually serve as a viable source of collagen for regeneration in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications.

4.4. Perspective in Periodontal Treatment

There are no studies published on the effects of using plant-derived rhCOL1 as biomaterials for regenerative medicine in periodontal diseases, as well as dental diseases. However, investigating characterization of plant-based collagen showed a pure heterotrimeric type I collagen with a ratio of hydroxyproline and lysine contents similar to native human collagen and a preserved α-helical structure. Moreover, it presents D-band striations that play an implicating role in mechanical properties and bio-functionality with high levels of integrin binding sites [68,75]. From a biological perspective, plant-extracted rhCOL1 supports the attachment and proliferation of several cell types, such as endothelial cells, fibroblasts, and keratinocytes [81]. It also promotes rapid wound healing processes by enhancing reepithelization with fully regenerated and differentiated tissues and cells in the damaged site [84,88]. In addition, it is considerably determined to be a safe alternative to allograft, as indicated by a lower secreted IL-1β level than bovine collagen in activated THP-1 macrophage model and no cellular response in human CD4+ T cells sensitive assays [80,81] (Figure 3). Therefore, it is possible that this new technology may work toward a common goal of achieving functional periodontal tissue regeneration with low-cost, effective in extraction and purification of collagen in comparison to animal sources, and avoidance of epidemic diseases, immunogenic adverse effects, religion restriction, and environmental concerns related to using animal collagen. However, future research is necessary to confirm this possibility.

5. Summary and Future Directions

There is a broad spectrum of commercially available collagen-based biomaterials for periodontal regeneration in several forms, including collagen sponges, plugs, scaffolds, matrices, and nanoparticles incorporating bioactive molecules or stem cells. The issue of collagen sources is one which persists beyond the scope of this article. Animal-based collagen possess substantiated risks for disease transmission and immunogenicity. The coming of recombinant DNA technology in producing rhCOL1 in tobacco plants might overcome and substitute the use of collagen from animal sources, because rhCOL1 provides a pure heterotrimeric type I collagen with similar architecture and biological properties to native human collagen. In addition, rhCOL1 avoids pathogenic contamination and transmission, immunogenic adverse effects, religion restriction, and environmental concerns related to using animal collagen. However, future studies are needed to confirm the periodontal regenerative potential of rhCOL1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.B. and P.J.; literature assessment, T.B. and P.J.; writing—original draft preparation, T.B. and P.J.; writing—review and editing, T.B., P.T., P.R., N.T. and P.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT), the Oral Health Research Unit, Suranaree University of Technology (SUT) and National Science, Research and Innovation Fund (project code: 90464).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hernández-Monjaraz, B.; Santiago-Osorio, E.; Monroy-García, A.; Ledesma-Martínez, E.; Mendoza-Núñez, V.M. Mesenchymal stem cells of dental origin for inducing tissue regeneration in periodontitis: A mini-review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Wu, Y.; Chen, L.; Scott, P.G.; Tredget, E.E. Mesenchymal stem cells enhance wound healing through differentiation and angiogenesis. Stem Cells 2007, 25, 2648–2659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Larsson, L.; Decker, A.; Nibali, L.; Pilipchuk, S.; Berglundh, T.; Giannobile, W. Regenerative medicine for periodontal and peri-implant diseases. J. Dent. Res. 2016, 95, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Christ, G.J.; Saul, J.M.; Furth, M.E.; Andersson, K.-E. The pharmacology of regenerative medicine. Pharmacol. Rev. 2013, 65, 1091–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Onizuka, S.; Iwata, T. Application of periodontal ligament-derived multipotent mesenchymal stromal cell sheets for periodontal regeneration. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Cho, Y.-D.; Kim, K.-H.; Lee, Y.-M.; Ku, Y.; Seol, Y.-J. Periodontal Wound Healing and Tissue Regeneration: A Narrative Review. Pharmaceuticals 2021, 14, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vanden Berg-Foels, W.S. In situ tissue regeneration: Chemoattractants for endogenous stem cell recruitment. Tissue Eng. Part B Rev. 2014, 20, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Pankajakshan, D.; Agrawal, D.K. Mesenchymal stem cell paracrine factors in vascular repair and regeneration. J. Biomed. Technol. Res. 2014, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Silva, G.V.; Litovsky, S.; Assad, J.A.; Sousa, A.L.; Martin, B.J.; Vela, D.; Coulter, S.C.; Lin, J.; Ober, J.; Vaughn, W.K. Mesenchymal stem cells differentiate into an endothelial phenotype, enhance vascular density, and improve heart function in a canine chronic ischemia model. Circulation 2005, 111, 150–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Feng, X.; Feng, G.; Xing, J.; Shen, B.; Li, L.; Tan, W.; Xu, Y.; Liu, S.; Liu, H.; Jiang, J. TNF-α triggers osteogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells via the NF-κB signalling pathway. Cell Biol. Int. 2013, 37, 1267–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Page-McCaw, A.; Ewald, A.J.; Werb, Z. Matrix metalloproteinases and the regulation of tissue remodelling. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2007, 8, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Sima, C.; Viniegra, A.; Glogauer, M. Macrophage immunomodulation in chronic osteolytic diseases—The case of periodontitis. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2019, 105, 473–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wikesjö, U.; Sigurdsson, T.; Lee, M.; Tatakis, D.; Selvig, K. Dynamics of wound healing in periodontal regenerative therapy. J. Calif. Dent. Assoc. 1995, 23, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  14. Kato, A.; Miyaji, H.; Ishizuka, R.; Tokunaga, K.; Inoue, K.; Kosen, Y.; Yokoyama, H.; Sugaya, T.; Tanaka, S.; Sakagami, R. Combination of root surface modification with BMP-2 and collagen hydrogel scaffold implantation for periodontal healing in beagle dogs. Open Dent. J. 2015, 9, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. d’Aquino, R.; De Rosa, A.; Lanza, V.; Tirino, V.; Laino, L.; Graziano, A.; Desiderio, V.; Laino, G.; Papaccio, G. Human mandible bone defect repair by the grafting of dental pulp stem/progenitor cells and collagen sponge biocomplexes. Eur. Cells Mater. 2009, 18, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Dunn, C.A.; Jin, Q.; Taba, M., Jr.; Franceschi, R.T.; Rutherford, R.B.; Giannobile, W.V. BMP gene delivery for alveolar bone engineering at dental implant defects. Mol. Ther. 2005, 11, 294–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Jin, Q.; Anusaksathien, O.; Webb, S.A.; Printz, M.A.; Giannobile, W.V. Engineering of tooth-supporting structures by delivery of PDGF gene therapy vectors. Mol. Ther. 2004, 9, 519–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Allan, B.; Ruan, R.; Landao-Bassonga, E.; Gillman, N.; Wang, T.; Gao, J.; Ruan, Y.; Xu, Y.; Lee, C.; Goonewardene, M. Collagen Membrane for Guided Bone Regeneration in Dental and Orthopedic Applications. Tissue Eng. Part A 2021, 27, 372–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sabitha Sudarsan, K.; Priya, M.; Arun, R. Clinical and histological evaluation of alloderm GBR and BioOss in the treatment of Siebert’s class I ridge deficiency. J. Indian Soc. Periodontol. 2008, 12, 73. [Google Scholar]
  20. Boymuradov, S. Management of maxillary alveolar process fractures by combination of Osteon and Colla Guide resorbable membrane. Med. Health Sci. J. 2011, 5, 73–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wessing, B.; Emmerich, M.; Bozkurt, A. Horizontal ridge augmentation with a novel resorbable collagen membrane: A retrospective analysis of 36 consecutive patients. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2016, 36, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Sheikh, Z.; Hamdan, N.; Ikeda, Y.; Grynpas, M.; Ganss, B.; Glogauer, M. Natural graft tissues and synthetic biomaterials for periodontal and alveolar bone reconstructive applications: A review. Biomater. Res. 2017, 21, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Abuelnaga, M.; Elbokle, N.; Khashaba, M. Evaluation of custom made xenogenic bone grafts in mandibular alveolar ridge augmentation versus particulate bone graft with titanium mesh. Egypt. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2018, 9, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Mandelli, F.; Perale, G.; Danti, S.; D’Alessandro, D.; Ghensi, P. Clinical and histological evaluation of socket preservation using SmartBone®, a novel heterologous bone substitute: A case series study. Oral Implant. 2018, 2, 87–94. [Google Scholar]
  25. Wang, E.; Han, J.; Zhang, X.; Wu, Y.; Deng, X.-L. Efficacy of a mineralized collagen bone-grafting material for peri-implant bone defect reconstruction in mini pigs. Regen. Biomater. 2019, 6, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Abdelaziz, M.; Shaaban, R.; Abdelhalim, S.; Sadaka, M. Effect of collaplug® on the healing of extraction sockets in patients under oral anticoagulant therapy (clinical study). Alex. Dent. J. 2015, 40, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Sowjanya, N.P.; Rao, N.; Bhushan, N.S.; Krishnan, G. Versitality of the use of collagen membrane in oral cavity. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. JCDR 2016, 10, ZC30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Cho, H.; Jung, H.-D.; Kim, B.-J.; Kim, C.-H.; Jung, Y.-S. Complication rates in patients using absorbable collagen sponges in third molar extraction sockets: A retrospective study. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2015, 41, 26–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Mahajan, R.; Khinda, P.; Shewale, A.; Ghotra, K.; Bhasin, M.T.; Bhasin, P. Comparative efficacy of placental membrane and Healiguide™ in treatment of gingival recession using guided tissue regeneration. J. Indian Soc. Periodontol. 2018, 22, 513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mathew-Steiner, S.S.; Roy, S.; Sen, C.K. Collagen in Wound Healing. Bioengineering 2021, 8, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hickman, D.A.; Pawlowski, C.L.; Sekhon, U.D.; Marks, J.; Gupta, A.S. Biomaterials and advanced technologies for hemostatic management of bleeding. Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1700859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Simionescu, B.; Ivanov, D. Natural and synthetic polymers for designing composite materials. In Handbook of Bioceramics and Biocomposites; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 233–286. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sionkowska, A. Current research on the blends of natural and synthetic polymers as new biomaterials. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2011, 36, 1254–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mahesh, L.; Kurtzman, G.M.; Shukla, S. Regeneration in Periodontics: Collagen-A Review of Its Properties and Applications in Dentistry. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2015, 36, 358–363. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  35. Ogle, O. Perioperative hemorrhage. In Atlas of Minor Oral Surgery; Dym, H., Ogle, O.E., Eds.; Saunders: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2000; pp. 62–63. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gurtner, G.C.; Werner, S.; Barrandon, Y.; Longaker, M.T. Wound repair and regeneration. Nature 2008, 453, 314–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Xue, M.; Jackson, C.J. Extracellular matrix reorganization during wound healing and its impact on abnormal scarring. Adv. Wound Care 2015, 4, 119–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. El Masry, M.S.; Chaffee, S.; Das Ghatak, P.; Mathew-Steiner, S.S.; Das, A.; Higuita-Castro, N.; Roy, S.; Anani, R.A.; Sen, C.K. Stabilized collagen matrix dressing improves wound macrophage function and epithelialization. FASEB J. 2019, 33, 2144–2155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Kwon, H.M.; Hur, S.-M.; Park, K.-Y.; Kim, C.-K.; Kim, Y.-M.; Kim, H.-S.; Shin, H.-C.; Won, M.-H.; Ha, K.-S.; Kwon, Y.-G. Multiple paracrine factors secreted by mesenchymal stem cells contribute to angiogenesis. Vasc. Pharmacol. 2014, 63, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rezaie, J.; Heidarzadeh, M.; Hassanpour, M.; Amini, H.; Shokrollahi, E.; Ahmadi, M.; Rahbarghazi, R. The angiogenic paracrine potential of mesenchymal stem cells. In Update on Mesenchymal and Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  41. Wessing, B.; Lettner, S.; Zechner, W. Guided bone regeneration with collagen membranes and particulate graft materials: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2018, 33, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Elgali, I.; Omar, O.; Dahlin, C.; Thomsen, P. Guided bone regeneration: Materials and biological mechanisms revisited. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2017, 125, 315–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sbricoli, L.; Guazzo, R.; Annunziata, M.; Gobbato, L.; Bressan, E.; Nastri, L. Selection of collagen membranes for bone regeneration: A literature review. Materials 2020, 13, 786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Rodriguez, I.; Selders, G.; Fetz, A.; Gehrmann, C.; Stein, S.; Evensky, J.; Green, M.; Bowlin, G. Barrier membranes for dental applications: A review and sweet advancement in membrane developments. Mouth Teeth 2018, 2, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  45. Zellin, G.; Linde, A. Effects of different osteopromotive membrane porosities on experimental bone neogenesis in rats. Biomaterials 1996, 17, 695–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ratiu, C.; Brocks, M.; Costea, T.; Moldovan, L.; Cavalu, S. PRGF-modified collagen membranes for guided bone regeneration: Spectroscopic, microscopic and nano-mechanical investigations. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Ghavimi, M.A.; Bani Shahabadi, A.; Jarolmasjed, S.; Memar, M.Y.; Maleki Dizaj, S.; Sharifi, S. Nanofibrous asymmetric collagen/curcumin membrane containing aspirin-loaded PLGA nanoparticles for guided bone regeneration. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 18200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Cavalu, S.; Roiu, G.; Pop, O.; Heredea, D.A.P.; Costea, T.O.; Costea, C.F. Nano-Scale Modifications of Amniotic Membrane Induced by UV and Antibiotic Treatment: Histological, AFM and FTIR Spectroscopy Evidence. Materials 2021, 14, 863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Vogel, W.; Gish, G.D.; Alves, F.; Pawson, T. The discoidin domain receptor tyrosine kinases are activated by collagen. Mol. Cell 1997, 1, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Trentham, D.E. Adverse reactions to bovine collagen implants: Additional evidence for immune response gene control of collagen reactivity in humans. Arch. Dermatol. 1986, 122, 643–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Rios, H.F.; Lin, Z.; Oh, B.; Park, C.H.; Giannobile, W.V. Cell- and gene-based therapeutic strategies for periodontal regenerative medicine. J. Periodontol. 2011, 82, 1223–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Turri, A.; Elgali, I.; Vazirisani, F.; Johansson, A.; Emanuelsson, L.; Dahlin, C.; Thomsen, P.; Omar, O. Guided bone regeneration is promoted by the molecular events in the membrane compartment. Biomaterials 2016, 84, 167–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Itoh, K.; Udagawa, N.; Katagiri, T.; Iemura, S.; Ueno, N.; Yasuda, H.; Higashio, K.; Quinn, J.M.; Gillespie, M.T.; Martin, T.J. Bone morphogenetic protein 2 stimulates osteoclast differentiation and survival supported by receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand. Endocrinology 2001, 142, 3656–3662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Jensen, E.D.; Pham, L.; Billington, C.J., Jr.; Espe, K.; Carlson, A.E.; Westendorf, J.J.; Petryk, A.; Gopalakrishnan, R.; Mansky, K. Bone morphogenic protein 2 directly enhances differentiation of murine osteoclast precursors. J. Cell. Biochem. 2010, 109, 672–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Shibuya, M. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptor (VEGFR) signaling in angiogenesis: A crucial target for anti-and pro-angiogenic therapies. Genes Cancer 2011, 2, 1097–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Kao, S.T.; Scott, D.D. A review of bone substitutes. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2007, 19, 513–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Wong, R.W.; Rabie, A.B.M. Effect of gusuibu graft on bone formation. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2006, 64, 770–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Granz, C.L.; Gorji, A. Dental stem cells: The role of biomaterials and scaffolds in developing novel therapeutic strategies. World J. Stem Cells 2020, 12, 897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Iohara, K.; Nakashima, M.; Ito, M.; Ishikawa, M.; Nakasima, A.; Akamine, A. Dentin regeneration by dental pulp stem cell therapy with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2. J. Dent. Res. 2004, 83, 590–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Heino, J. The collagen family members as cell adhesion proteins. Bioessays 2007, 29, 1001–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lebbink, R.J.; de Ruiter, T.; Adelmeijer, J.; Brenkman, A.B.; van Helvoort, J.M.; Koch, M.; Farndale, R.W.; Lisman, T.; Sonnenberg, A.; Lenting, P.J. Collagens are functional, high affinity ligands for the inhibitory immune receptor LAIR-1. J. Exp. Med. 2006, 203, 1419–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Kirsch, T.; Harrison, G.; Golub, E.E.; Nah, H.-D. The roles of annexins and types II and X collagen in matrix vesicle-mediated mineralization of growth plate cartilage. J. Biol. Chem. 2000, 275, 35577–35583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Dong, C.; Lv, Y. Application of collagen scaffold in tissue engineering: Recent advances and new perspectives. Polymers 2016, 8, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Martínez, A.; Blanco, M.; Davidenko, N.; Cameron, R. Tailoring chitosan/collagen scaffolds for tissue engineering: Effect of composition and different crosslinking agents on scaffold properties. Carbohydr. Polym. 2015, 132, 606–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Zhao, R.; Yang, R.; Cooper, P.R.; Khurshid, Z.; Shavandi, A.; Ratnayake, J. Bone Grafts and Substitutes in Dentistry: A Review of Current Trends and Developments. Molecules 2021, 26, 3007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Chu, C.; Deng, J.; Sun, X.; Qu, Y.; Man, Y. Collagen membrane and immune response in guided bone regeneration: Recent progress and perspectives. Tissue Eng. Part B Rev. 2017, 23, 421–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Samiei, M.; Alipour, M.; Khezri, K.; Saadat, Y.R.; Forouhandeh, H.; Abdolahinia, E.D.; Vahed, S.Z.; Sharifi, S.; Dizaj, S.M. Application of collagen and mesenchymal stem cells in regenerative dentistry. Curr. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Shoseyov, O.; Posen, Y.; Grynspan, F. Human collagen produced in plants: More than just another molecule. Bioengineered 2014, 5, 49–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Davison-Kotler, E.; Marshall, W.S.; García-Gareta, E. Sources of collagen for biomaterials in skin wound healing. Bioengineering 2019, 6, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Jafari, H.; Lista, A.; Siekapen, M.M.; Ghaffari-Bohlouli, P.; Nie, L.; Alimoradi, H.; Shavandi, A. Fish collagen: Extraction, characterization, and applications for biomaterials engineering. Polymers 2020, 12, 2230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Subhan, F.; Ikram, M.; Shehzad, A.; Ghafoor, A. Marine collagen: An emerging player in biomedical applications. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 4703–4707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Addad, S.; Exposito, J.-Y.; Faye, C.; Ricard-Blum, S.; Lethias, C. Isolation, characterization and biological evaluation of jellyfish collagen for use in biomedical applications. Mar. Drugs 2011, 9, 967–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Setina, C.M.; Haase, J.P.; Glatz, C.E. Process integration for recovery of recombinant collagen type I α1 from corn seed. Biotechnol. Prog. 2016, 32, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Xu, X.; Gan, Q.; Clough, R.C.; Pappu, K.M.; Howard, J.A.; Baez, J.A.; Wang, K. Hydroxylation of recombinant human collagen type I alpha 1 in transgenic maize co-expressed with a recombinant human prolyl 4-hydroxylase. BMC Biotechnol. 2011, 11, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Stein, H.; Wilensky, M.; Tsafrir, Y.; Rosenthal, M.; Amir, R.; Avraham, T.; Ofir, K.; Dgany, O.; Yayon, A.; Shoseyov, O. Production of bioactive, post-translationally modified, heterotrimeric, human recombinant type-I collagen in transgenic tobacco. Biomacromolecules 2009, 10, 2640–2645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Gallo, N.; Natali, M.L.; Sannino, A.; Salvatore, L. An overview of the use of equine collagen as emerging material for biomedical applications. J. Funct. Biomater. 2020, 11, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Yan, J.; Hu, K.; Xiao, Y.; Zhang, F.; Han, L.; Pan, S.; Li, L.; Wei, Y.; Cui, F. Preparation of recombinant human-like collagen/fibroin scaffold and its promoting effect on vascular cells biocompatibility. J. Bioact. Compat. Polym. 2018, 33, 416–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Benayahu, D.; Pomeraniec, L.; Shemesh, S.; Heller, S.; Rosenthal, Y.; Rath-Wolfson, L.; Benayahu, Y. Biocompatibility of a marine collagen-based scaffold in vitro and in vivo. Mar. Drugs 2020, 18, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Alves, A.; Costa-Gouveia, J.; de Castro, J.V.; Sotelo, C.; Vázquez, J.; Pérez-Martín, R.; Torrado, E.; Neves, N.; Reis, R.; Castro, A. Study of the immunologic response of marine-derived collagen and gelatin extracts for tissue engineering applications. Acta Biomater. 2022, 141, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Seror, J.; Stern, M.; Zarka, R.; Orr, N. The Potential Use of Novel Plant-Derived Recombinant Human Collagen in Aesthetic Medicine. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2021, 148, 32S–38S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Willard, J.J.; Drexler, J.W.; Das, A.; Roy, S.; Shilo, S.; Shoseyov, O.; Powell, H.M. Plant-derived human collagen scaffolds for skin tissue engineering. Tissue Eng. Part A 2013, 19, 1507–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Geahchan, S.; Baharlouei, P.; Rahman, A. Marine Collagen: A Promising Biomaterial for Wound Healing, Skin Anti-Aging, and Bone Regeneration. Mar. Drugs 2022, 20, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Liu, C. Application of marine collagen for stem-cell-based therapy and tissue regeneration. Med. Int. 2021, 1, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Shilo, S.; Roth, S.; Amzel, T.; Harel-Adar, T.; Tamir, E.; Grynspan, F.; Shoseyov, O. Cutaneous wound healing after treatment with plant-derived human recombinant collagen flowable gel. Tissue Eng. Part A 2013, 19, 1519–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Haagdorens, M.; Edin, E.; Fagerholm, P.; Groleau, M.; Shtein, Z.; Ulčinas, A.; Yaari, A.; Samanta, A.; Cepla, V.; Liszka, A. Plant Recombinant Human Collagen Type I Hydrogels for Corneal Regeneration. Regen. Eng. Transl. Med. 2021, 7, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Nollet, L.M.; Toldrá, F. Handbook of Analysis of Edible Animal By-Products; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  87. Baltzer, A.W.; Ostapczuk, M.S. Magnetic resonance imaging and clinically controlled improvement of a combined autologous conditioned plasma combined with rh collagen type I injections in lateral epicondylitis. Orthop. Rev. 2021, 13, 9018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Iacopi, E.; Banchellini, E.; Riitano, N.; Abbruzzese, L.; Goretti, C.; Piaggesi, A. Pilot trial of plant-derived recombinant type I human collagen in healing post-surgical diabetic foot wounds. Diabet. Foot J. 2020, 23, 30–36. [Google Scholar]
Biomimetics 07 00034 g001 550
Figure 1. Mechanisms of periodontal regeneration. MSC at the area of lesions exerts angiogenic effects, resulting in the secretion of inflammatory cytokines (TNF-a and IL-6) and growth factors (IGF-1 and TGF-b), and recruitment of immune cells (monocytes and lymphocytes). These inflammatory mediators induce proliferation and differentiation of MSC towards fibroblasts, cementoblasts, and osteoblasts leading to ECM remodeling, cementogenesis, and new bone formation, respectively. The immune cells release IL-10 to suppress osteoclast activation in homeostatic maintenance of new bone formation.
Figure 1. Mechanisms of periodontal regeneration. MSC at the area of lesions exerts angiogenic effects, resulting in the secretion of inflammatory cytokines (TNF-a and IL-6) and growth factors (IGF-1 and TGF-b), and recruitment of immune cells (monocytes and lymphocytes). These inflammatory mediators induce proliferation and differentiation of MSC towards fibroblasts, cementoblasts, and osteoblasts leading to ECM remodeling, cementogenesis, and new bone formation, respectively. The immune cells release IL-10 to suppress osteoclast activation in homeostatic maintenance of new bone formation.
Biomimetics 07 00034 g001
Biomimetics 07 00034 g002 550
Figure 2. Application of collagen as biomaterials for periodontal regeneration. Collagen is commonly used as hemostatic materials, wound dressing products for healing and regeneration, bone grafting materials for bone substitution and GBR, and scaffolds/matrices for gene and cell regeneration therapies.
Figure 2. Application of collagen as biomaterials for periodontal regeneration. Collagen is commonly used as hemostatic materials, wound dressing products for healing and regeneration, bone grafting materials for bone substitution and GBR, and scaffolds/matrices for gene and cell regeneration therapies.
Biomimetics 07 00034 g002
Biomimetics 07 00034 g003 550
Figure 3. Chemical and biological properties of plant-derived recombinant human collagen and its perspectives in periodontal regeneration.
Figure 3. Chemical and biological properties of plant-derived recombinant human collagen and its perspectives in periodontal regeneration.
Biomimetics 07 00034 g003
Table
Table 1. Studies of collagen applications and outcomes in periodontal regeneration.
Table 1. Studies of collagen applications and outcomes in periodontal regeneration.
TherapiesCollagen ApplicationsOutcomesReferences
Gene and cell regenerative therapiesCollagen hydrogel scaffold (prepare from atelocollagen: type I collagen) as scaffold/matrix for recombinant human BMP2Reconstruction of cementum-like tissue, periodontal ligament and alveolar bone, and prevention of ankylosis in one wall intra-bony defectKato et al., 2015 [14]
Gingistat® collagen sponge scaffold with dental pulp stem cells (DPCs)Optimal vertical repair of alveolar bone, and complete restoration back to the second molar of periodontal tissue in the model of injury site by extraction of mandibular third extractiond’Aquina et al., 2009 [15]
2.6% collagen as matrix for Ad-BMP7 gene deliveryPromotion of alveolar bone defect, and enhancement of new bone-to-implant contacts in edentulous ridge defect followed by dental implantationDunn et al., 2005 [16]
2.6% collagen matrix containing Ad-PDGF-B gene deliveryIncrease in bridging bone and tooth-lining cemental regeneration in periodontal defects (large tooth-associated alveolar bone defect)Jin et al., 2004 [17]
Guided bone regenerationPorcine-derived collagen barrier membrane (CelGroTM, Bio-Gide®)Restoration of bone defect in both horizontal and vertical dimension, and sufficient support to the implants with no adverse effects in the GBR for dental implantsAllan et al., 2021 [18]
AlloDerm® GBR as barrier membrane with bone grafting materials (BioOss)Significant induction of ridge growth in both horizontal and vertical dimension in soft and hard tissues in class I ridge defectSabitha Sudarsan et al., 2008 [19]
Colla-Guide resorbable barrier membrane in combination with OsteonPreservation of alveolar crest shape and height by restoring bone tissue via secondary osseous tissue formation in maxillary alveolar process fractureBoymuradov and Shukhrat, 2011 [20]
CreosTM Xenoprotect in combination with bone grafting materials (BioOss)Enhancement of bone augmentation of alveolar ridge with accelerated healing time in horizontal alveolar ridge defects Wessing et al., 2016 [21]
Bone graft and substitutionBioMend® type I bovine collagenServing as barrier in the prevention of epithelial cell migration/invasion in allowing GBR and GTR regenerationsSheikh et al., 2017 [22]
Demineralized bone combined with collagen matrix (SmartBoneTM) Successful osseointegration and new bone formation appeared with vascular connective tissue surrounding periodontal osseous defectMandelli et al., 2018, Abuelnaga et al., 2018 [23,24]
Mineralized collagen bone grafting materialStimulation of new bone formation to reconstruct the deficient alveolar ridge around the dental implantWang et al., 2019 [25]
Hemostasis and wound healingCollaPlug® Bovine-derived collagenExerting effective local hemostasis, acceleration of healing in soft tissues, and reduction of post-operative painAbdelaziz et al., 2015 [26]
Bovine-derived collagen membrane (Dressing products from EUCARE pharmaceuticals)Increase in the scores of hemostasis, granulation tissue formation, and epithelization with reduced pain score in various intra-oral lesionsSowjanya et al., 2016 [27]
Absorbable type I collagen sponge (Ateoplug) Enhancement of tissue regeneration by promoting proliferation and differentiation of MSCs in periodontal tissue, facilitation of endogenous healing of wound, and prevention of post-operative complications in third molar extraction socketCho et al., 2015 [28]
Bio-resorbable type I bovine collagen (HealiguideTM)Significant reduction in gingival recession defects with higher clinical assessment values (recession depth, root coverage percentage, probing depth, clinical attachment level, gingival tissue thickness, and others)Mahajan et al., 2018 [29]
Ad-BMP7: adenovirus containing bone morphogenic protein 7, Ad-PDGF-B: adenovirus containing platelet-derived growth factor-B, BMP2: bone morphogenic protein2, GBR: guided bone regeneration, MSCs: mesenchymal stem cells.
Table
Table 2. Comparison of current sources of medical collagen.
Table 2. Comparison of current sources of medical collagen.
FeaturesAnimal CollagenMarine CollagenPlant Collagen
Architecture/structure
  • Highly homologous to human collagen (component of amino acid sequences depend on source of extraction (species and body part)
  • Triple helix structure [76]
  • Highly homologous to human collagen (but lower proportion of Pro and Hyp contents)
  • Triple helix structure
  • Lower water solubility, melting point, and viscosity (since lower Pro and Hyp) [71,72]
  • Human amino acid sequence (7–10% and 0.7–1% of hydroxylated proline and lysine, respectively)
  • Triple helix structure [68,75,77]
Biocompatibility
  • Around 2–4% of treated population is allergic to bovine and porcine-derived collagen, evoking both cellular and humoral immune responses [69]
  • Risk of infectious disease transmission, such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy [68,69]
  • Biocompatibility meets the standards of FDA on the sub-chronic toxicity test (ISO-10993) [78]
  • Less immunogenic with low inducing pro-inflammatory cytokines as well as inducible NO synthase [79]
  • Free of foreign animal tissue contamination
  • No immune response (CD4+ T cell sensitive assay) [80]
  • No hypersensitivity
  • Two-fold lower IL-1b level vs. bovine collagen [81]
Regenerative ability
  • Enhancing tissue regeneration by promoting proliferation and differentiation [28]
  • Facilitating endogenous wound healing with prevented post-operative complications [28]
  • Providing sufficient support for tissue and cell regeneration [18]
  • Enhancing cell and tissue regeneration [82]
  • Supporting cell adhesion and inducing proliferation and differentiation [83]
  • Promoting healing of wound by accelerated endogenous healing process [82]
  • Supporting cellular adhesion and expansion of human cell during tissue repair or regeneration [81]
  • Enhanced reepithelization [84]
  • Histological data showed that the damaged tissues were fully differentiated and regenerated [85]
RestrictionReligion restrictionNo religion restrictionNo religion restriction
%Yield Biomimetics 07 00034 i001
Depending on the species, sex, age and body weight of the animal [86]
  • Skin (20–90%)
  • Scale (0.05–3.2%)
  • Depending on species and extraction conditions [70]
1 g/kg (0.1%) [75]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Binlateh, T.; Thammanichanon, P.; Rittipakorn, P.; Thinsathid, N.; Jitprasertwong, P. Collagen-Based Biomaterials in Periodontal Regeneration: Current Applications and Future Perspectives of Plant-Based Collagen. Biomimetics 2022, 7, 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7020034

AMA Style

Binlateh T, Thammanichanon P, Rittipakorn P, Thinsathid N, Jitprasertwong P. Collagen-Based Biomaterials in Periodontal Regeneration: Current Applications and Future Perspectives of Plant-Based Collagen. Biomimetics. 2022; 7(2):34. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7020034

Chicago/Turabian Style

Binlateh, Thunwa, Peungchaleoy Thammanichanon, Pawornwan Rittipakorn, Natthapol Thinsathid, and Paiboon Jitprasertwong. 2022. "Collagen-Based Biomaterials in Periodontal Regeneration: Current Applications and Future Perspectives of Plant-Based Collagen" Biomimetics 7, no. 2: 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7020034

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop