Failures and complications associated with resorbable and non-resorbable membranes in guided bone regeneration: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.2 3区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Medicina Oral Patologia Oral Y Cirugia Bucal Pub Date : 2026-03-07 DOI:10.4317/medoral.27721

D-S Cousiño, S Egido-Moreno, B-G Navarro, H-O Mejía, A Blanco-Carrión, J López-López

{"title":"Failures and complications associated with resorbable and non-resorbable membranes in guided bone regeneration: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"D-S Cousiño, S Egido-Moreno, B-G Navarro, H-O Mejía, A Blanco-Carrión, J López-López","doi":"10.4317/medoral.27721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Patients treated with guided bone regeneration (GBR) may be treated using resorbable or non- resorbable membranes, which differ in their efficacy, failures and complication profiles. The objective is to evaluate the efficacy and failures and complications of resorbable membranes versus non-resorbable membranes in patients undergoing guided bone regeneration (GBR). A search was conducted until July 31, 2025. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing both types of membrane in ROG were the eligibility criteria.Material and methods: Data collection and risk of bias assessment (RoB 2.0) were performed. Primary endpoints included bone regeneration efficacy and membrane-associated complications.Results: Twenty-five RCTs with a total of 684 patients were included. Most studies reported a high success rate for both types of membranes. However, non-resorbable membranes had a higher incidence of complications, such as membrane exposure (up to 71%), disinheritance and infections.Conclusions: Both types of membranes are effective for ROG, they should be chosen according to the defect and type of patient. Resorbable membranes have a lower complication rate and non-resorbable membranes offer greater dimensional stability and the need to perform a second surgery for its removal.","PeriodicalId":49016,"journal":{"name":"Medicina Oral Patologia Oral Y Cirugia Bucal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13399966/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina Oral Patologia Oral Y Cirugia Bucal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.27721","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients treated with guided bone regeneration (GBR) may be treated using resorbable or non- resorbable membranes, which differ in their efficacy, failures and complication profiles. The objective is to evaluate the efficacy and failures and complications of resorbable membranes versus non-resorbable membranes in patients undergoing guided bone regeneration (GBR). A search was conducted until July 31, 2025. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing both types of membrane in ROG were the eligibility criteria.

Material and methods: Data collection and risk of bias assessment (RoB 2.0) were performed. Primary endpoints included bone regeneration efficacy and membrane-associated complications.

Results: Twenty-five RCTs with a total of 684 patients were included. Most studies reported a high success rate for both types of membranes. However, non-resorbable membranes had a higher incidence of complications, such as membrane exposure (up to 71%), disinheritance and infections.

Conclusions: Both types of membranes are effective for ROG, they should be chosen according to the defect and type of patient. Resorbable membranes have a lower complication rate and non-resorbable membranes offer greater dimensional stability and the need to perform a second surgery for its removal.

查看原文本刊更多论文

可吸收膜和不可吸收膜在引导骨再生中的失败和并发症：系统回顾和荟萃分析。

背景：引导骨再生（GBR）患者可使用可吸收膜或不可吸收膜，其疗效、失败和并发症不同。目的是评估可吸收膜与不可吸收膜在引导骨再生（GBR）患者中的疗效、失败和并发症。搜寻工作一直持续到2025年7月31日。比较两种膜在ROG中的随机临床试验（rct）是入选标准。材料和方法：进行数据收集和偏倚风险评估（RoB 2.0）。主要终点包括骨再生效果和膜相关并发症。结果：纳入25项随机对照试验，共684例患者。大多数研究报告这两种膜的成功率都很高。然而，不可吸收膜有较高的并发症发生率，如膜暴露（高达71%）、继承性丧失和感染。结论：两种膜都是有效的，应根据患者的缺陷和类型选择。可吸收膜的并发症发生率较低，而不可吸收膜具有更大的尺寸稳定性，并且需要进行第二次手术以去除其。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Medicina Oral Patologia Oral Y Cirugia Bucal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： 1. Oral Medicine and Pathology: Clinicopathological as well as medical or surgical management aspects of diseases affecting oral mucosa, salivary glands, maxillary bones, as well as orofacial neurological disorders, and systemic conditions with an impact on the oral cavity. 2. Oral Surgery: Surgical management aspects of diseases affecting oral mucosa, salivary glands, maxillary bones, teeth, implants, oral surgical procedures. Surgical management of diseases affecting head and neck areas. 3. Medically compromised patients in Dentistry: Articles discussing medical problems in Odontology will also be included, with a special focus on the clinico-odontological management of medically compromised patients, and considerations regarding high-risk or disabled patients. 4. Implantology 5. Periodontology