ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Reassessing the Use of Membranes in Peri-Implantitis Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vivo Studies.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 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.
- Evaluating the Clinical Efficacy of Membrane-Assisted Regenerative Therapy in Peri-Implantitis Management: A Comprehensive Review Incorporating Systematic Review Evidence.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peri-implantitis (PI) presents a growing challenge in implant dentistry, with regenerative surgical approaches often incorporating barrier membranes despite the uncertainty of their clinical value. This systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies aimed to evaluate the efficacy of barrier membranes in the reconstructive surgical treatment of PI. A comprehensive electronic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library, covering studies published from 1990 to 2024. The protocol followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42025625417). Eligible studies included in vivo investigations comparing regenerative procedures with and without membrane use, with a minimum follow-up of 6 months and at least 10 implants per study. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool. The meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model and included 15 studies comprising 560 patients. Although not consistently statistically significant, the findings suggested that membrane use may offer enhanced outcomes in terms of probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction and marginal bone level (MLB) gain. The evidence was limited by high clinical heterogeneity, variability in outcome definitions, and short follow-up durations. While membranes are commonly utilized, current evidence does not justify their routine use. Further well-designed, long-term clinical trials are needed to establish specific indications and optimize treatment strategies.
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.