Comparison of bioabsorbable and bioinert membranes for guided bone regeneration around non-submerged implants. An experimental study in the mongrel dog.
Article first published online: 25 DEC 2001
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Volume 10, Issue 3, pages 226–237, June 1999
How to Cite
Kohal, R.-J., Trejo, P. M., Wirsching, C. and Hürzeler, M. B. (1999), Comparison of bioabsorbable and bioinert membranes for guided bone regeneration around non-submerged implants. An experimental study in the mongrel dog. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 10: 226–237. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100306.x
- Issue published online: 25 DEC 2001
- Article first published online: 25 DEC 2001
- Accepted for publication 22 October 1998
- Cited By
- barrier membrane;
- guided bone regeneration;
- non-submerged implants;
- bioabsorbable membrane;
- bioinert membrane
The aim of this clinical investigation was to evaluate the effect of guided bone regeneration around non-submerged implants using different barrier membranes. Five adult mongrel dogs were used in this investigation. After having all premolars extracted and implant osteotomies performed in the regions of the former premolars, buccal bone defects were created. Subsequently, 3 implants were placed and the defects treated with 1 of the following 3 modalities: a) guided bone regeneration using an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane, b) guided bone regeneration using a bioabsorbable membrane made from a synthetic copolymer of glycolide and lactide and c) no membrane application. Following implant and membrane placement, the mucoperiosteal flaps were repositioned and tightly sutured around the neck of the implants allowing for a nonsubmerged healing. After a healing period of 6 months, the animals were sacrificed and the specimens processed for histologic evaluation. The clinical pre-treatment defects between the different treatment groups were not statistically different (bioinert membrane group: 4.9 mm; control group: 4.8 mm; bioabsorbable membrane group: 4.5 mm). The remaining histological defects after 6 months of healing amounted to approximately 2.5 mm in the bioinert membrane group, 5.1 mm in the control group and 6.0 mm in the bioabsorbable membrane group. A significant difference was observed between the bioinert membrane group and the other 2 groups. The mineralized bone-to-implant contact in the bioinert membrane group was 51.5%, in the control group 46.3% and in the bioabsorbable membrane group 37.5%. The values between the bioinert membrane group and the bioabsorbable membrane group were statistically different. The results of this study indicate that bone regeneration with bioinert e-PTFE membranes around non-submerged implants is possible. The utilized absorbable polyglycolic/polylactid membrane did not show any bone regenerative effect and the results did not differ from the control group without membrane application.