Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is commonly used in combination with the installment of titanium implants. The application of a membrane to exclude non‐osteogenic tissues from interfering with bone regeneration is a key principle ofGBR. Membrane materials possess a number of properties which are amenable to modification. A large number of membranes have been introduced for experimental and clinical verification. This prompts the need for an update on membrane properties and the biological outcomes, as well as a critical assessment of the biological mechanisms governing bone regeneration in defects covered by membranes. The relevant literature for this narrative review was assessed after aMEDLINE/PubMed database search. Experimental data suggest that different modifications of the physicochemical and mechanical properties of membranes may promote bone regeneration. Nevertheless, the precise role of membrane porosities for the barrier function ofGBRmembranes still awaits elucidation. Novel experimental findings also suggest an active role of the membrane compartment per se in promoting the regenerative processes in the underlying defect duringGBR, instead of being purely a passive barrier. The optimization of membrane materials by systematically addressing both the barrier and the bioactive properties is an important strategy in this field of research.

Today, aseptic loosening is the most common cause of revision of major arthroplasties. Aseptic loosening accounts for more than two-thirds of hip revisions and almost one-half of knee revisions in Sweden. Several theories on the cause of aseptic loosening have been proposed. Most of these theories, however, are based on empiric observations, experimental animal models or anecdotal cases. In this review, we discuss the most common theories concerning aseptic loosening. It emerges from this review that aseptic loosening has a multifactorial etiology and cannot be explained by a single theory.

Complex physical and chemical interactions take place in the interface between the implant surface and bone. Various descriptions of the ultrastructural arrangement to various implant design features, ranging from solid and macroporous geometries to surface modifications on the micron-, submicron-, and nano- levels, have been put forward. Here, the current knowledge regarding structural organisation of the bone-implant interface is reviewed with a focus on solid devices, mainly metal (or alloy) intended for permanent anchorage in bone. Certain biomaterials that undergo surface and bulk degradation are also considered. The bone-implant interface is a heterogeneous zone consisting of mineralised, partially mineralised, and unmineralised areas. Within the meso-micro-nano-continuum, mineralised collagen fibrils form the structural basis of the bone-implant interface, in addition to accumulation of non-collagenous macromolecules such as osteopontin, bone sialoprotein, and osteocalcin. In the published literature, as many as eight distinct arrangements of the bone-implant interface ultrastructure have been described. The interpretation is influenced by the in vivo model and species-specific characteristics, healing time point(s), physico-chemical properties of the implant surface, implant geometry, sample preparation route(s) and associated artefacts, analytical technique(s) and their limitations, and non-compromised vs compromised local tissue conditions. The understanding of the ultrastructure of the interface under experimental conditions is rapidly evolving due to the introduction of novel techniques for sample preparation and analysis. Nevertheless, the current understanding of the interface zone in humans in relation to clinical implant performance is still hampered by the shortcomings of clinical methods for resolving the finer details of the bone-implant interface. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Being a hierarchical material by design, the overall strength of bone is governed by composition and structure. Understanding the structure of the bone-implant interface is essential in the development of novel bone repair materials and strategies, and their long-term success. Here, the current knowledge regarding the eventual structural organisation of the bone-implant interface is reviewed, with a focus on solid devices intended for permanent anchorage in bone, and certain biomaterials that undergo surface and bulk degradation. The bone-implant interface is a heterogeneous zone consisting of mineralised, partially mineralised, and unmineralised areas. Within the meso-micro-nano-continuum, mineralised collagen fibrils form the structural basis of the bone-implant interface, in addition to accumulation of non-collagenous macromolecules such as osteopontin, bone sialoprotein, and osteocalcin.