View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
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) 33241468Tay et al. 2020Adult patients in 23 included studies Systematic review of randomized trials
Key resultsThe type of membrane used had no statistically significant influence on any post-surgical complication.
#2) 30675733Thoma et al. 2019Adult patients in 28 included studiesSystematic review of randomized trials
Key resultsMean complication rate for non-resorbable membrane was 13.9% while mean complication rate for resorbable membrane was 13.6%: difference not statistically significant.
#3) 28938030Lim et al. 2018Adult patients in 21 included studiesSystematic review of randomized trials
Key resultsResorbable 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: 12/01/2022spacer
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
post a comment
None available

Return to Found CATs list