Efficacy of biomaterials for lateral bone augmentation performed with guided bone regeneration. A network meta-analysis

source extracted confidence: high 2026-04-09
#humans #alveolar-ridge-augmentation #biocompatible-materials #bone-regeneration #dental-implantation-endosseous

Efficacy of biomaterials for lateral bone augmentation performed with guided bone regeneration. A network meta-analysis

Calciolari et al., 2023 | Periodontol 2000 | Systematic Review

Citation

Calciolari Elena, Corbella Stefano, ... Donos Nikolaos. Efficacy of biomaterials for lateral bone augmentation performed with guided bone regeneration. A network meta-analysis. Periodontol 2000. 2023-Oct;93(1):77-106. doi:10.1111/prd.12531

Abstract

Bone regeneration is often required concomitant with implant placement to treat a bone fenestration, a dehiscence, and for contouring. This systematic review assessed the impact of different biomaterials employed for guided bone regeneration (GBR) simultaneous to implant placement on the stability of radiographic peri-implant bone levels at ≥12 months of follow-up (focused question 1), as well as on bone defect dimension (width/height) changes at re-assessment after ≥4 months (focused question 2). Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared different biomaterials for GBR were considered. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using a random-effects model. A ranking probability between treatments was obtained, as well as an estimation of the surface under the cumulative ranking value (SUCRA). Overall, whenever the biological principle of GBR was followed, regeneration occurred in a predictable way, irrespective of the type of biomaterial used. A lower efficacy of GBR treatments was suggested for initially large defects, despite the trend did not reach statistical significance. Regardless of the biomaterial employed, a certain resorption of the augmented bone was observed overtime. While GBR was shown to be a safe and predictable treatment, several complications (including exposure, infection, and soft tissue dehiscence) were reported, which tend to be higher when using cross-linked collagen membranes.

Key Findings

While GBR was shown to be a safe and predictable treatment, several complications (including exposure, infection, and soft tissue dehiscence) were reported, which tend to be higher when using cross-linked collagen membranes.

Outcomes Measured

  • Requires manual extraction

Population

Field Value
Population See abstract
Sample Size See abstract
Age Range See abstract
Condition See abstract

MeSH Terms

  • Humans
  • Alveolar Ridge Augmentation
  • Biocompatible Materials
  • Bone Regeneration
  • Dental Implantation, Endosseous
  • Dental Implants
  • Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal

Evidence Classification

  • Level: Systematic Review
  • Publication Types: Systematic Review, Journal Article, Network Meta-Analysis
  • Vertical: collagen

Provenance

Source extracted via PubMed E-utilities API on 2026-04-09