|
Title |
Complication Rates Following Guided Bone Regeneration Are Not Significantly Affected by Membrane Type |
Clinical Question |
For patients undergoing guided bone regeneration, does use of a resorbable membrane increase rate of post operative complications compared to a non-resorbable membrane? |
Clinical Bottom Line |
Complication rates following guided bone regeneration are not significantly affected by membrane type. This conclusion is based on the findings of three systematic reviews of observational (case control, cohort studies, and case series) and interventional (randomized controlled clinical trials and clinical-controlled trials) studies. Clinician’s choice of membrane type for GBR should not be based on risk of post-operative complications. |
Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
#1) 33241468 | Tay et al. 2020 | Adult patients in 23 included studies | Systematic review of randomized trials | Key results | The type of membrane used had no statistically significant influence on any post-surgical complication. | #2) 30675733 | Thoma et al. 2019 | Adult patients in 28 included studies | Systematic review of randomized trials | Key results | Mean complication rate for non-resorbable membrane was 13.9% while mean complication rate for resorbable membrane was 13.6%: difference not statistically significant. | #3) 28938030 | Lim et al. 2018 | Adult patients in 21 included studies | Systematic review of randomized trials | Key results | Resorbable membrane was associated with a weighted complication rate of 18.3% (95% CI: 10.4% to 30.4%) and non-resorbable membrane with a rate of 17.6% (95% CI: 10.0% to 29.3%). | |
Evidence Search |
“resorbable membrane” AND “complication”; Guided Bone Regeneration [Mesh] AND complication”; Guided Bone Regeneration [Mesh] |
Comments on
The Evidence |
The systematic reviews are high level of evidence. The reviews include various forms of study designs, the strongest being randomized controlled trials. Three separate systematic studies resulting in the same conclusion further strengthen the validity of the results. However, one factor that could affect the validity would be the risk of bias in some of the included RCTs. In the Hao Tay et al. article, the majority of the included studies were found to be low bias while three studies had an overall moderate risk of bias and one had a high risk. In the Thoma et al. article, six studies were found to have a low risk of bias, 10 had an unclear risk of bias while the remaining were high risk of bias. Lastly, Lim et al one study had high risk of bias, one study had moderate risk, and the two remaining RCTs had a low risk. Overall, more low risk studies were included in the systematic reviews than moderate or high risk and thus the results are strengthened. |
Applicability |
Choice of membrane for GBR is based on a variety of factors. These studies suggest that risk of complications following GBR should not be included in a clinician’s decision when selecting a type of membrane (resorbable or non-resorbable). |
Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) (Periodontics) |
Keywords |
Guided Bone Regeneration; complications; resorbable membrane; non resorbable membrane
|
ID# |
3501 |
Date of submission: |
12/01/2022 |
E-mail |
namy@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
Author |
Mary Namy |
Co-author(s) |
Bradley Phares |
Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Dr. Palaiologoua |
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
palaiologoua@uthscsa.edu |
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
None available | |
|
|