[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-468476-105":59,"doc-detail-468476-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","proliferation-adhesion-and-morphology-of-bone-derived-stromal-cells-on-xenogenic-collagen-matrices-an-in-vitro-study","Proliferation, Adhesion, and Morphology of Bone-Derived Stromal Cells on Xenogenic Collagen Matrices: An In Vitro Study","","Acellular xenogeneic collagen matrices are increasingly used to augment periodontal and peri-implant soft tissues and to cover recession defects. This in vitro study assessed how bone-derived stromal cells respond when cultured on three commercial collagen membranes (Fibro-Gide®, mucoderm®, and NovoMatrix®). Cell number, viability, actin cytoskeleton changes, and adhesion markers (VCAM-1, FAK, fibronectin) were measured at multiple timepoints. Results showed reduced viability and stress-like cytoskeletal remodeling with no adhesion marker changes around membranes, especially near NovoMatrix®.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/proliferation-adhesion-and-morphology-of-bone-derived-stromal-cells-on-xenogenic-collagen-matrices-an-in-vitro-study/468476/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/proliferation-adhesion-and-morphology-of-bone-derived-stromal-cells-on-xenogenic-collagen-matrices-an-in-vitro-study/468476.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Jake","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-30",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",12,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"Which collagen membranes were tested in the study?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The study compared three commercially available collagen membranes: Fibro-Gide®, mucoderm®, and NovoMatrix®. Cells were cultured onto each membrane for evaluation over time.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How did the membranes affect cell viability and morphology?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"Cells grown on the membranes showed significantly lower viability than controls at D7, with stress-fiber-like actin cytoskeleton changes. Cells around NovoMatrix® also exhibited reduced viability.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"Did the membranes alter adhesion markers such as VCAM-1, FAK, and fibronectin?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"No. The three membranes did not affect adhesion markers for cells growing around them, despite changes in viability and cytoskeletal organization.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},468476,1790981193,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":39,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":46,"preview_page_count":4},962084928904,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Clinical and Experimental Dental Research   \n|  ORIGINAL ARTICLE \u003Cbr>Proliferation, Adhesion, and Morphology of Bone‐Derived Stromal Cells on Xenogenic Collagen Matrices: An In Vitro Study\u003Cbr>Giulia Brunello1,2 | Direm Ilter1 | Florian Fürst1 | Jürgen Becker1 | Charlotte von Gall3 | Kathrin Becker2  | Beryl Schwarz‐Herzke3\u003Cbr>1Department of Oral Surgery, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany | 2Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Charité—\u003Cbr>Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany | 3Institute of Anatomy II, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany Correspondence: Kathrin Becker ([kathrin.becker@charite.de](kathrin.becker@charite.de))\u003Cbr>Received: 2 September 2025 | Revised: 22 December 2025 | Accepted: 29 December 2025\u003Cbr>Funding: The project was self‐supported.\u003Cbr>Keywords: cell viability | collagen membranes | cytoskeleton | protein expression | soft tissue augmentation |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| ABSTRACT\u003Cbr>Objectives: Acellular xenogeneic matrices are becoming increasingly popular for periodontal and peri‐implant soft tissue augmentation and recession coverage. This study aimed to investigate the behavior of bone‐derived stromal cells cultured onto three commercially available collagen membranes (Fibro‐Gide®, mucoderm®, and NovoMatrix®) .\u003Cbr>Methods: Cells were isolated from alveolar bone chips of four adult healthy patients and were separately seeded on the membranes. Cells cultured in the absence of biomaterials were used as a control. Number and viability of cells on and around the membranes were evaluated at different timepoints. Actin cytoskeleton change was visualized with phalloidin staining. Markers for adhesion (VCAM‐1, FAK, and fibronectin) were assessed by immunofluorescence.\u003Cbr>Results: The number and viability of cells grown on the membranes were significantly lower than those of the controls at D7 . Moreover, cells grown on and around all three membranes showed changes in actin cytoskeleton reminiscent of stress fibers. Cells grown around NovoMatrix® also show reduced viability. The three membranes had no effect on the adhesion markers of cells growing around them.\u003Cbr>Conclusions: All three membranes resulted in a reduction in viability and increased cell stress of adherent cells compared to the control. A reduced viability was detected, in particular, in cells growing around NovoMatrix® . Morphologically, the cells showed signs of stress. This reaction indicates that the membranes may release substances that could impair the healing process in vivo, especially in the case of fast degradation. |  |\n| 1 | Introduction | Stefanini et al. 2023; Zucchelli and Mounssif 2015; Zucchelli |\n| Soft tissue grafting around teeth and implants plays a pivotal | et al. 2020) . |\n| role in addressing several clinical scenarios, with indications | Soft tissue augmentation can be achieved with subepithelial |\n| spanning from periodontal and peri‐implant soft tissue | autogenous connective tissue grafts (CTGs), which have dem- |\n| augmentation to recession coverage (Deeb and Deeb 2015; | onstrated predictable outcomes and long‐term stability |\n| The authors Kathrin Becker and Beryl Schwarz‐Herzke equally contributed. |  |\n| This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.\u003Cbr>© 2026 The Author(s) . Clinical and Experimental Dental Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. |  |\n\nClinical and Experimental Dental Research, 2026; 12:e70288 1 of 8  \n[https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.70288](https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.70288)  \n(Barootchi et al. 2020; Carbone et al. 2024; Roccuzzo et al. 2024; Stefanini et al. 2023) .  \nSoft tissue grafts can be harvested from different intraoral donor sites, including the palate, the edentulous ridges, the maxillary tuberosity, and the retromolar region. The palate is the preferred graft harvest","cbCaidYKZ8AFMvY5","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidYKZ8AFMvY5","pdf",1360657,"English","# Abstract\n## Objectives\n## Methods\n## Results\n## Conclusions\n# Introduction","[{\"question\":\"Which collagen membranes were tested in the study?\",\"answer\":\"The study compared three commercially available collagen membranes: Fibro-Gide®, mucoderm®, and NovoMatrix®. Cells were cultured onto each membrane for evaluation over time.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the membranes affect cell viability and morphology?\",\"answer\":\"Cells grown on the membranes showed significantly lower viability than controls at D7, with stress-fiber-like actin cytoskeleton changes. Cells around NovoMatrix® also exhibited reduced viability.\"},{\"question\":\"Did the membranes alter adhesion markers such as VCAM-1, FAK, and fibronectin?\",\"answer\":\"No. The three membranes did not affect adhesion markers for cells growing around them, despite changes in viability and cytoskeletal organization.\"}]","Proliferation, Adhesion, and Morphology of Bone-Derived Stromal Cells on Xenogenic Collagen Matrices: An In Vitro Study | PDF",1790774290]