A COMPARISON OF GBR MEMBRANES

Abstract

Introduction: Guided bone regeneration has become common practice among surgeons because it gives them the opportunity to place implants in bone defects or absorbed alveolar ridges. This fact raises the question which membrane should one use to achieve the best results. Purpose and Methods: The aim of this study is to present the most recent data around GBR membranes. The existing types of membranes will be compared for their ability to facilitate bone regeneration, their biocompatibility, and their clinical complications. Research for this study was done by evaluating papers of the last decade from the following online databases: PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar. Finally, selected clinical cases will be presented. Results: Membranes are divided in two main categories resorbable (collagen, synthetic) and non-resorbable (ePTFE, Ti reinforced). It is quite challenging to compare clinical trials because they use different parameters for comparison such as selection criteria of the patients, the type of defect to be treated, the way of executing the treatment, the duration, the materials used and the evaluation criteria. As far as bone regeneration is concerned there seem to be no significant differences in bone level and density of newly formed bone between different types of membranes when used in combination with bone grafts. However, non-resorbable membranes are more likely to cause tissue dehiscence, become exposed to the oral environment and subsequently become infected. Also, there are new types of membranes being studied which aim to play an active role in bone regeneration with embedded active ingredients, but more research needs to be done. Conclusions: According to the most recent protocols the combination of bone grafts and collagen membranes is selected in most cases because it has less clinical complications.