Comparison of a polyethylene glycol membrane and a collagen membrane for the treatment of bone dehiscence defects at bone level implants—A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial

Abstract

Objectives The aim of the present randomized, controlled clinical multicenter trial was to compare a polyethylene glycol (PEG) and a native collagen membrane (BG) for simultaneous guided bone regeneration at bony dehiscence‐type defects around bone level titanium implants. Material and methods The study enrolled 117 patients requiring implant treatment in the posterior maxilla or mandible with expected buccal bony dehiscence‐type defects at the placed titanium implants. According to a parallel groups design, defects were filled with a synthetic bone filler and randomly assigned to either PEG or BG membrane. As primary parameter, the relative vertical bone fill was assessed at baseline and at re‐entry after 6 months of healing. As secondary parameters, the marginal bone level (MBL) was assessed radiographically and soft tissue conditions were recorded up to 18 months postloading. Results Both groups showed comparable vertical bone fill revealing a relative change in defect height of 59.7% (PEG) and 64.4% (BG). The absolute mean reduction in defect size was 2.5 mm in the PEG group and 3.2 mm in the BG group. Although both groups revealed a statistically significant mean defect reduction (p < .001), a comparison between the two groups did not show statistical significances. The non‐inferiority test with inferiority limit of −5% could not be rejected, based on the 90% confidence interval of the differences of the two means with lower limit −15.4%. After 18 months, an MBL increase of 0.45 ± 0.43 mm in the PEG group and 0.41 ± 0.81 mm in the BG group was detected (p < .001). Soft tissue complications were observed in both groups without showing statistical significance. Conclusions Both membranes supported bone regeneration at dehiscence‐type defects and obtained vertical bone fill with a relative change in defect height of 59.7% (PEG) and 64.4% (BG); however, the non‐inferiority of PEG could not be shown.

Resorbable Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration: Critical Features, Potentials, and Limitations

“…112 This is done in order to decrease the hardness of PCL, lower the glass transition temperature, and reduce the amount of solvent required for solvent-involved manufacturing processes. In a multicentered randomized clinical trial by Jung et al, 111 152 developed a hydrogel composed of a collagen and elastin-like polypeptide interpenetrating network that encapsulates BMP-2, doxycycline, and 45S5 Bioglass, that enhanced human adipose-derived stem cell attachment, proliferation, and differentiation toward the osteogenic lineage. In vitro culture has revealed the deposition of hydroxyapatite particles within a collagenous fibrillar structure.…”

Effect of Different Membranes on Vertical Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis

“…One study described soft tissue healing [ 30 ]. The rate of soft tissue swelling was higher in the PEG group (29.7%) than in the CM group (26.8%).…”

“…The rate of soft tissue swelling was higher in the PEG group (29.7%) than in the CM group (26.8%). The rate of soft tissue cracking in the PEG group (7%) was lower than that in the CM group (14%) [ 30 ].…”

“…D Group (CM) against the J Group (PEG). There were two studies comparing the CM group with the PEG group [30,31].…”

Horizontal Augmentation of Chronic Mandibular Defects by the Guided Bone Regeneration Approach: A Randomized Study in Dogs

“…Xenogeneic collagens represent a group of highly biocompatible resorbable membranes with low immunogenicity but easy incorporation into the tissues [ 13 , 14 ]. In studies related to GBR, the literature reveals the highest frequency for a combination of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) with a native non-cross linked collagen membrane (NCM) [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Recently proposed treatment protocols using this combination recommend four-point fixation tacking the membrane to the alveolar bone aiming at additional stabilization of the graft and the membrane [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ].…”