Literature DB >> 28617950

Effect of cross-linked vs non-cross-linked collagen membranes on bone: A systematic review.

J Jiménez Garcia1,2,3, S Berghezan4, J M M Caramês2,5,6, M M Dard2,7, D N S Marques4,6,8.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to compare the clinical outcomes of two different resorbable collagen membranes in terms of regenerated bone volume, postoperative complications and membrane degradation during bone regeneration procedures. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) or controlled trials (CT) that compared both techniques were reviewed on four electronic databases up to December 2015, a manual search was performed on the bibliography of the collected articles and the authors were contacted for additional references if undetected on the electronic and manual search. Membrane exposure was evaluated as a dichotomous outcome and the statistical unit was the membrane. The results were presented as relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval. Eight RCTs and one CT were included in this study. The majority of the studies depicted a bone augmentation area, which ranged from 46.15% to 94.6% for the non-cross-link membranes and from 44% to 92.6% for the cross-link membranes at the 4-6 month re-entry surgery. From a total of 289 patients, a forest plot concerning the membrane exposure was constructed using the obtained RR of the included studies. The overall RR was 1.43 (95% CI: 0.85-2.39) with no statistically significant differences between the two groups, although with a marginal tendency towards higher exposure in the cross-link membrane group. This systematic review suggests the different membranes present themselves as appropriate for bone regeneration procedures, although cross-link membranes present higher rates of postoperative complications. However, more RCT with higher sample sizes are needed to evaluate the different membranes. The suggested lack of clinical differences between the compared membranes suggest that further cost-benefit ratio, tissue integration and postoperative complication oriented studies should be performed so that clinicians can take a patient-centred, evidence-based decision.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bone grafting; membranes; regeneration; systematic review/meta-analysis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28617950     DOI: 10.1111/jre.12470

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Periodontal Res        ISSN: 0022-3484            Impact factor:   4.419


  5 in total

1.  [Barrier effect of improved porcine small intestinal submucosa absorbable membrane on early healing of mandibular defects in rabbits].

Authors:  B W Li; W Y Wu; L Tang; Y Zhang; Y H Liu
Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2019-10-18

2.  Diverse patterns of bone regeneration in rabbit calvarial defects depending on the type of collagen membrane.

Authors:  Inpyo Hong; Alharthi Waleed Khalid; Hyung Chul Pae; Young Woo Song; Jae Kook Cha; Jung Seok Lee; Jeong Won Paik; Seong Ho Choi
Journal:  J Periodontal Implant Sci       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 2.614

Review 3.  Biocompatible Materials in Otorhinolaryngology and Their Antibacterial Properties.

Authors:  Jakub Spałek; Przemysław Ociepa; Piotr Deptuła; Ewelina Piktel; Tamara Daniluk; Grzegorz Król; Stanisław Góźdź; Robert Bucki; Sławomir Okła
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 4.  The Use of Biocompatible Membranes in Oral Surgery: The Past, Present & Future Directions. A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Ioannis Kormas; Alessandro Pedercini; Hatem Alassy; Larry F Wolff
Journal:  Membranes (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-29

5.  A randomized controlled clinical study of periodontal tissue regeneration using an extracellular matrix-based resorbable membrane in combination with a collagenated bovine bone graft in intrabony defects.

Authors:  Sulhee Kim; Hyeyoon Chang; Jin Wook Hwang; Sungtae Kim; Ki-Tae Koo; Tae-Il Kim; Yang-Jo Seol; Yong-Moo Lee; Young Ku; Jong-Ho Lee; In-Chul Rhyu
Journal:  J Periodontal Implant Sci       Date:  2017-12-31       Impact factor: 2.614

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.