WHATSAPP CONTACT ONLY
Aim: Which membrane out of resorbable and non-resorbable membrane is better when used for guided bone regeneration in dental implant cases? Materials and Methods: A systematic review of articles selected from MEDLINE, Clinical trials registry (India) and Google Scholar was carried out. Additional studies were hand searched. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from 1st January 1995 to 30th September 2015 were included in this study. These studies compared the resorbable and non-resorbable membranes used for guided bone regeneration in cases to be treated with implant placement. Results: A total of 172 articles were identified through electronic database. 170 articles were obtained after elimination of duplicates which were then screened. 16 full-text articles were accessed for eligibility criteria. 8 trials were identiﬁed for inclusion in this review, comparing the test group (non-resorbable membranes) with the control (resorbable membranes.) Conclusions: The use of a membrane definitely contributes to the regeneration of the hard tissue in bone augmentation. The complete ﬁll of the defect was obtained with Polyglactic-910 (resorbable membrane). No substantial differences were observed comparing non-resorbable ePTFE membranes and resorbable membranes. Limitation: Only one electronic database search was done and only full-text articles in english were included. Only 13 trials were included and the majority are of limited sample size, and have short follow-ups. Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest in this review which was funded by the authors themselves
Rosane Cavalcante Fragoso, Brasil
Chief Scientific Officer and Head of a Research Group
IJCR is following an instant policy on rejection those received papers with plagiarism rate of more than 20%. So, All of authors and contributors must check their papers before submission to making assurance of following our anti-plagiarism policies.