Background and Objectives: In vitro evaluation of macro and microscopic features of five resorbable barrier membranes used for Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) in oral hard tissue surgery. Materials and Methods: Five different resorbable barrier membranes were analyzed by optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). For each sample, surface appearance, the presence and size of ridges and depressions, number of layers, and the inner structure were recorded. Each membrane was cut into 1 × 1 cm squares to determine mass, density and thickness. In addition, an EDX microanalysis was performed. Results: Under optical microscopy, all membranes appeared rough, with ridges and depressions. In cross-section, only Sample 2 presented true stratification. On SEM, most membranes showed a three-dimensional collagen fiber architecture. Sample 3, a sheet of collagenated equine bone, differed accordingly. EDX spectra showed broadly overlapping elemental composition, characterized by N, O and C. The mass depends on the composition: bone-containing membranes weighed more; those composed predominantly of collagen weighed less. Conclusions: Pore size, surface density and roughness, and the type of cross-linking can influence cell interaction and may lead to different regenerative scenarios, potentially improving the quality and timing of tissue regeneration. Membrane selection should be dictated by the clinical scenario, prioritizing properties most advantageous for the defect.

Background/Objectives: Digital workflows have significantly improved implant prosthodontic procedures; however, full-arch and complex rehabilitations still present challenges for intraoral scanning because of cumulative stitching errors, limited anatomical landmarks, and reduced scan body stability. Methods: This article describes a single proof-of-concept clinical case in which a hybrid Scan Transfer workflow was applied to support implant position transfer during intraoral scanning through stabilization, verification, and supplementary extraoral acquisition steps. The proposed workflow was compared descriptively with a conventional scan body approach in one full-arch implant-supported rehabilitation. Digital datasets were acquired with an intraoral scanner and analyzed by curve-based superimposition to explore relative discrepancies between the two transfer methods. Results: In this individual case, the hybrid workflow showed descriptive findings suggestive of lower deviations, particularly in posterior regions, and favorable framework adaptation on the reference model. Conclusions: Because the evidence is limited to a single clinical case and no inferential statistical analysis was performed, these findings should be interpreted as preliminary and hypothesis-generating only. Further controlled in vitro and clinical studies with larger samples are required before conclusions can be drawn regarding accuracy, reliability, or clinical superiority.