Volume 20, Issue 2 pp. 162-168

A randomized, controlled clinical trial to evaluate a new membrane for guided bone regeneration around dental implants

Ronald E. Jung

Ronald E. Jung

Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Switzerland

Search for more papers by this author
Gian A. Hälg

Gian A. Hälg

Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Switzerland

Search for more papers by this author
Daniel S. Thoma

Daniel S. Thoma

Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Switzerland

Search for more papers by this author
Christoph H. F. Hämmerle

Christoph H. F. Hämmerle

Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Switzerland

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 21 January 2009
Citations: 111
Correspondence to:
PD Dr Ronald E. Jung
Department of Fixed and Removable
Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science
Dental School
University of Zurich
Plattenstrasse 11
CH-8028 Zurich
Switzerland
Tel.: +41 1 634 32 51
Fax: +41 1 634 43 05
e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Objectives: The use of barrier membranes in guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures for the treatment of alveolar bone defects is common practice. The objective of this study was to test whether a synthetic bioresorbable polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel membrane could result in a similar amount of vertical bone fill as a standard collagen membrane, both combined with a membrane supporting material.

Material and methods: The study enrolled 37 patients requiring implant treatment with an expected osseous defect in the posterior maxilla or mandible. After raising a mucoperiosteal flap, the implant sites were prepared and dental implants placed. The defect height was then measured and defects <3 mm were excluded from the study. Defects were grafted with bovine bone mineral and randomly covered with either a collagen membrane (control group, 18 patients) or a PEG hydrogel membrane (test group, 19 patients), which is applied as a liquid. After a healing period of 6 months, surgical re-entry was performed and the change in vertical bone height from baseline evaluated.

Results: Well-vascularized hard tissue was apparent at all sites and the regenerated bone was similar to the surrounding native bone. Mean vertical defect fill after 6 months was 5.63±1.84 mm at test sites and 4.25±1.16 mm at control sites, and the mean defect fills were 94.9% and 96.4% at test and control sites, respectively. More soft tissue complications were observed with the PEG membrane (e.g., delayed or incomplete wound healing) but all sites recovered uneventfully.

Conclusions: The new PEG hydrogel membrane was as successful as a standard collagen membrane in the treatment of bony dehiscence defects around dental implants with simplified clinical handling.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.