Background and Aims To review the regenerative technologies used in bone regeneration: bone grafts, barrier membranes, bioactive factors and cell therapies. Material and Methods Four background review publications served to elaborate this consensus report. Results and Conclusions Biomaterials used as bone grafts must meet specific requirements: biocompatibility, porosity, osteoconductivity, osteoinductivity, surface properties, biodegradability, mechanical properties, angiogenicity, handling and manufacturing processes. Currently used biomaterials have demonstrated advantages and limitations based on the fulfilment of these requirements. Similarly, membranes for guided bone regeneration (GBR) must fulfil specific properties and potential biological mechanisms to improve their clinical applicability. Pre‐clinical and clinical studies have evaluated the added effect of bone morphogenetic proteins (mainly BMP‐2) and autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) when used as bioactive agents to enhance bone regeneration. Three main approaches using cell therapies to enhance bone regeneration have been evaluated: (a) “minimally manipulated” whole tissue fractions; (b) ex vivo expanded “uncommitted” stem/progenitor cells; and (c) ex vivo expanded “committed” bone‐/periosteum‐derived cells. Based on the evidence from clinical trials, transplantation of cells, most commonly whole bone marrow aspirates (BMA) or bone marrow aspirate concentrations (BMAC), in combination with biomaterial scaffolds has demonstrated an additional effect in sinus augmentation and horizontal ridge augmentation, and comparable bone regeneration to autogenous bone in alveolar cleft repair.

Current data indicate that smokers with periodontal disease have a suppressed inflammatory response, a significantly less favourable clinical outcome and seem to have an altered host antibody response to antigenic challenge than non-smokers. In contrast, the subgingival microflora of smokers appears similar to that of non-smokers.

Following both therapeutic modalities, there were marked clinical improvements at both R1 and R2 (6 months) from baseline. The current study, in contrast to previous findings, failed to show that FM-SRP is a more efficacious periodontal treatment modality compared to Q-SRP. However, both modalities are efficacious and the clinician should select the treatment modality based on practical considerations related to patient preference and clinical workload.

In subjects with periodontitis, P. gingivalis infection may be responsible for inducing autoimmune responses that characterize rheumatoid arthritis.

This study failed to confirm that same-day FM-SRP resulted in greater microbiological improvements compared with Q-SRP at 2-weekly intervals over a 6-month period, as determined by PCR.