ArticleMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2026
Failures and complications associated with resorbable and non-resorbable membranes in guided bone regeneration: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2026. 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.
- Guided Bone Regeneration for Vertical Alveolar Augmentation: Clinical Evaluation of d-PTFE-Ti Membranes and Comparison with Collagen Membranes: A Systematic Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients treated with guided bone regeneration (GBR) may be treated using resorbable or non- resorbable membranes, which differ in their efficacy, failures and complication profiles. The objective is to evaluate the efficacy and failures and complications of resorbable membranes versus non-resorbable membranes in patients undergoing guided bone regeneration (GBR). A search was conducted until July 31, 2025. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing both types of membrane in ROG were the eligibility criteria. MATERIAL AND
methodsData collection and risk of bias assessment (RoB 2.0) were performed. Primary endpoints included bone regeneration efficacy and membrane-associated complications.
resultsTwenty-five RCTs with a total of 684 patients were included. Most studies reported a high success rate for both types of membranes. However, non-resorbable membranes had a higher incidence of complications, such as membrane exposure (up to 71%), disinheritance and infections.
conclusionsBoth types of membranes are effective for ROG, they should be chosen according to the defect and type of patient. Resorbable membranes have a lower complication rate and non-resorbable membranes offer greater dimensional stability and the need to perform a second surgery for its removal.
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.