Bastian Wessing, Dr Med Dent/Stefan Lettner/Werner Zechner, Univ Prof, Dr Med, Dr Med Dent: Purpose: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate different methods for guided bone regeneration using collagen membranes and particulate grafting materials in implant dentistry. Materials and Methods: An electronic database search and hand search were performed for all relevant articles dealing with guided bone regeneration in implant dentistry published between 1980 and 2014. Only randomized clinical trials and prospective controlled studies were included. The primary outcomes of interest were survival rates, membrane exposure rates, bone gain/defect reduction, and vertical bone loss at follow-up. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the effects of presence of membrane cross-linking, timing of implant placement, membrane fixation, and decortication. Results: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. Implant survival rates were similar between simultaneous and subsequent implant placement. The membrane exposure rate of cross-linked membranes was approximately 30% higher than that of non?cross-linked membranes. The use of anorganic bovine bone mineral led to sufficient newly regenerated bone and high implant survival rates. Membrane fixation was weakly associated with increased vertical bone gain, and decortication led to higher horizontal bone gain (defect depth). Conclusion: Guided bone regeneration with particulate graft materials and resorbable collagen membranes is an effective technique for lateral alveolar ridge augmentation. Because implant survival rates for simultaneous and subsequent implant placement were similar, simultaneous implant placement is recommended when possible. Additional techniques like membrane fixation and decortication may represent beneficial implications for the practice.

Istvan A. Urban, DMD, MD, PhD/Jaime L. Lozada, DMD/Bastian Wessing, Dr Med Dent/Fernando Su?rez-L?pez del Amo, DDS/Hom-Lay Wang, DDS, MSD, PhD: Osteosynthesis screws and titanium or resorbable pins have been recommended for fixing guided bone regeneration (GBR) membranes and stabilizing the graft. However, the removal of fixation screws or pins often requires an additional surgical procedure. This article presents a periosteal suturing technique with resorbable sutures for the fixation of grafts and membranes in GBR in single implant sites. This technique avoids potential complications of using fixation screws or pins, such as perforation of the roots when inserting the pins, and eliminates the need for a second retrieval surgery.

Objective: To compare clinical performance of a new resorbable non‐cross‐linked collagen membrane, creos xenoprotect (CXP), with a reference membrane (BG) for guided bone regeneration at dehisced implant sites.Materials and methods: This randomized controlled clinical trial enrolled patients with expected dehiscence defects following implant placement to restore single teeth in the maxillary and mandibular esthetic zone and premolar area. Implants were placed using a two‐stage surgical protocol with delayed loading. Bone augmentation material placed at the implant surface was immobilized with CXP or BG membrane. Soft tissue health was followed during the healing period, and the defect size was measured at reentry and 6 months after implant placement.Results: Of the 49 included patients, 24 were treated with CXP and 25 with BG. Patient characteristics did not differ between the two arms. In the CXP arm, the defect height at implant insertion was (mean ± SD) 5.1 ± 2.1 mm (n = 24) and reduced at reentry by 81% to 1.0 ± 1.3 mm (n = 23). In the BG arm, the defect height at implant insertion was 4.9 ± 1.9 mm (n = 25) and reduced at reentry by 62% to 1.7 ± 2.1 mm (n = 24). Assuming a margin of non‐inferiority of 1 mm, CXP was non‐inferior to BG. Membrane exposure rate was highest at week 3 in both arms, reaching 16.7% for BG and 8.7% for CXP.Conclusions: The new resorbable non‐cross‐linked collagen membrane facilitates bone gain to support implant placement in expected dehiscence defects. The observed trend toward higher mean bone gain and lower exposure rate with CXP compared to BG should be further investigated.