SynthesisActa odontologica Scandinavica2025
Effects of different oral barrier membranes on the efficacy and safety of guided bone regeneration in patients with dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to systematically evaluate the effects of different oral barrier membranes on bone regeneration, focusing on their clinical efficacy and safety during dental implant procedures.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, and CBM databases for case-control and cohort studies published between January 2002 and March 2025. Two independent researchers screened and extracted data, and statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD492390).
resultsA total of 11 clinical controlled and cohort studies with 1,003 patients were included. The absorbable membrane group demonstrated a significantly higher success rate (p < 0.05), greater bone graft thickness (p < 0.05), and fewer adverse reactions (p < 0.05). Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in osseointegration, total mineralised tissue, and non-mineralised tissue (p > 0.05).
conclusionAbsorbable oral barrier membranes exhibit superior safety and efficacy profiles, making them a preferred choice for guided bone regeneration. However, further studies with higher methodological quality and longer follow-up durations are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.