Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35872861›Full record

SynthesisBioMed research international2022

Effect of Different Membranes on Vertical Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Mi Zhang, Zili Zhou, Jiahao Yun, Rui Liu, Jie Li, Yimeng Chen, HongXin Cai, Heng Bo Jiang, Eui-Seok Lee, Jianmin Han and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BioMed research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Comparative Analysis of Gelatin/Polylactic Acid and Commercial PLA Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Trial
  5. Materials advances in GTR membrane: A comprehensive review.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Mi ZhangDepartment of Dental Materials, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, National Center of Stomatology, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Research Center of Engineering and Technology for Computerized Dentistry Ministry of Health, NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Beijing 100081, China.
Zili ZhouDepartment of Dental Materials, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, National Center of Stomatology, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Research Center of Engineering and Technology for Computerized Dentistry Ministry of Health, NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Beijing 100081, China.
Jiahao YunThe Conversationalist Club, School of Stomatology, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong 250117, China.
Rui LiuThe Conversationalist Club, School of Stomatology, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong 250117, China.
Jie LiThe Conversationalist Club, School of Stomatology, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong 250117, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0022-6582
Yimeng ChenThe Conversationalist Club, School of Stomatology, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong 250117, China.
HongXin CaiDepartment and Research Institute of Dental Biomaterials and Bioengineering, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7281-229X
Heng Bo JiangDepartment of Dental Materials, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, National Center of Stomatology, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Research Center of Engineering and Technology for Computerized Dentistry Ministry of Health, NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Beijing 100081, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2514-2633
Eui-Seok LeeDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Korea University, Seoul 08308, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1818-1140
Jianmin HanDepartment of Dental Materials, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, National Center of Stomatology, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Research Center of Engineering and Technology for Computerized Dentistry Ministry of Health, NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Beijing 100081, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5857-2808
Yunhan SunThe Conversationalist Club, School of Stomatology, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, Shandong 250117, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8641-0825

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study is aimed at performing a systematic review and a network meta-analysis of the effects of several membranes on vertical bone regeneration and clinical complications in guided bone regeneration (GBR) or guided tissue regeneration (GTR). We compared the effects of the following membranes: high-density polytetrafluoroethylene (d-PTFE), expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE), crosslinked collagen membrane (CCM), noncrosslinked collagen membrane (CM), titanium mesh (TM), titanium mesh plus noncrosslinked (TM + CM), titanium mesh plus crosslinked (TM + CCM), titanium-reinforced d-PTFE, titanium-reinforced e-PTFE, polylactic acid (PLA), polyethylene glycol (PEG), and polylactic acid 910 (PLA910). Using the PICOS principles to help determine inclusion criteria, articles are collected using PubMed, Web of Science, and other databases. Assess the risk of deviation and the quality of evidence using the Cochrane Evaluation Manual, and GRADE. 27 articles were finally included. 19 articles were included in a network meta-analysis with vertical bone increment as an outcome measure. The network meta-analysis includes network diagrams, paired-comparison forest diagrams, funnel diagrams, surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) diagrams, and sensitivity analysis diagrams. SUCRA indicated that titanium-reinforced d-PTFE exhibited the highest vertical bone increment effect. Meanwhile, we analyzed the complications of 19 studies and found that soft tissue injury and membrane exposure were the most common complications.

Indexed as

Guided Tissue Regeneration, PeriodontalTitaniumBone RegenerationCollagenMembranes, ArtificialPolytetrafluoroethyleneCollagenMembranes, ArtificialPolytetrafluoroethyleneTitanium

Identifiers

PMID35872861
PMCPMC9303140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.