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.

Aim: To review the knowledge on the mechanisms controlling membrane–host interactions in guided bone regeneration (GBR) and investigate the possible role ofGBRmembranes as bioactive compartments in addition to their established role as barriers.Materials and Methods: A narrative review was utilized based onin vitro,in vivoand available clinical studies on the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlyingGBRand the possible bioactive role of membranes.Results: Emerging data demonstrate that the membrane contributes bioactively to the regeneration of underlying defects. The cellular and molecular activities in the membrane are intimately linked to the promoted bone regeneration in the underlying defect. Along with the native bioactivity ofGBRmembranes, incorporating growth factors and cells in membranes or with graft materials may augment the regenerative processes in underlying defects.Conclusion: In parallel with its barrier function, the membrane plays an active role in hosting and modulating the molecular activities of the membrane‐associated cells duringGBR. The biological events in the membrane are linked to the bone regenerative and remodelling processes in the underlying defect. Furthermore, the bone‐promoting environments in the two compartments can likely be boosted by strategies targeting both material aspects of the membrane and host tissue responses.

Background and Aims: To review the regenerative technologies used in bone regeneration: bone grafts, barrier membranes, bioactive factors and cell therapies.Material and Methods: Four background review publications served to elaborate this consensus report.Results and Conclusions: Biomaterials used as bone grafts must meet specific requirements: biocompatibility, porosity, osteoconductivity, osteoinductivity, surface properties, biodegradability, mechanical properties, angiogenicity, handling and manufacturing processes. Currently used biomaterials have demonstrated advantages and limitations based on the fulfilment of these requirements. Similarly, membranes for guided bone regeneration (GBR) must fulfil specific properties and potential biological mechanisms to improve their clinical applicability. Pre‐clinical and clinical studies have evaluated the added effect of bone morphogenetic proteins (mainly BMP‐2) and autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) when used as bioactive agents to enhance bone regeneration. Three main approaches using cell therapies to enhance bone regeneration have been evaluated: (a) “minimally manipulated” whole tissue fractions; (b) ex vivo expanded “uncommitted” stem/progenitor cells; and (c) ex vivo expanded “committed” bone‐/periosteum‐derived cells. Based on the evidence from clinical trials, transplantation of cells, most commonly whole bone marrow aspirates (BMA) or bone marrow aspirate concentrations (BMAC), in combination with biomaterial scaffolds has demonstrated an additional effect in sinus augmentation and horizontal ridge augmentation, and comparable bone regeneration to autogenous bone in alveolar cleft repair.

Inflammation and regeneration at the implant-bone interface are intimately coupled via cell-cell communication. In contrast to the prevailing view that monocytes/macrophages orchestrate mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and progenitor cells via the secretion of soluble factors, we examined whether communication between these different cell types also occurs via exosomes. LPS-stimulated human monocytes released exosomes, positive for CD9, CD63, CD81, Tsg101 and Hsp70, as determined by flow cytometry and Western blot. These exosomes also contained wide size distribution of RNA, including RNA in the size of microRNAs. The exosomes were shown to interact with human mesenchymal stem cells. After 24 h of culture, a considerable portion of the MSCs had internalised PKH67-labelled exosomes. Furthermore, after 72 h, the gene expression of the osteogenic markers runt-related transcription factor 2 (RUNX2) and bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) had increased in comparison with control medium, whereas no significant difference in osteocalcin (OC) expression was demonstrated. The present results show that, under given experimental conditions, monocytes communicate with MSCs via exosomes, resulting in the uptake of exosomes in MSCs and the stimulation of osteogenic differentiation. The present observations suggest that exosomes constitute an additional mode of cell-cell signalling with an effect on MSC differentiation during the transition from injury and inflammation to bone regeneration.

Bone-anchored titanium implants have revolutionized oral healthcare. Surface properties of oral titanium implants play decisive roles for molecular interactions, cellular response and bone regeneration. Nevertheless, the role of specific surface properties, such as chemical and phase composition and nanoscale features, for the biologicalin vivoperformance remains to be established. Partly, this is due to limited transfer of state-of-the-art preparation techniques to complex three-dimensional geometries, analytical tools and access to minute, intact interfacial layers. As judged by the available results of a few randomized clinical trials, there is no evidence that any particular type of oral implant has superior long-term success. Important insights into the recruitment of mesenchymal stem cells, cell–cell communication at the interface and high-resolution imaging of the interface between the surface oxide and the biological host are prerequisites for the understanding of the mechanisms of osseointegration. Strategies for development of the next generation of material surface modifications for compromised tissue are likely to include time and functionally programmed properties, pharmacological modulation and incorporation of cellular components.

The working hypothesis of guided bone regeneration (GBR) is that the membrane physically excludes non-osteogenic tissues from interfering with bone healing. However, the underlying mechanisms are insufficiently explained. This study aimed to investigate the molecular and structural pattern of bone healing in trabecular bone defects, with and without naturally derived resorbable membrane. Defects were created in rat femurs and treated with the membrane or left empty (sham). After 3d, 6d and 28d, the defect sites and membranes were harvested and analyzed with histology, histomorphometry, quantitative-polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), Western blot (WB) and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Histomorphometry demonstrated that the presence of the membrane promoted bone formation in early and late periods. This was in parallel with upregulation of cell recruitment and coupled bone remodeling genes in the defect. Cells recruited into the membrane expressed signals for bone regeneration (BMP-2, FGF-2, TGF-β1 and VEGF). Whereas the native membrane contained FGF-2 but not BMP-2, an accumulation of FGF-2 and BMP-2 proteins and immunoreactive cells were demonstrated by WB and IHC in the in vivo implanted membrane. The results provide cellular and molecular evidence suggesting a novel role for the membrane during GBR, by acting as a bioactive compartment rather than a passive barrier.