Efficacy of biomaterials for lateral bone augmentation performed with guided bone regeneration. A network meta‐analysis

Abstract Bone regeneration is often required concomitant with implant placement to treat a bone fenestration, a dehiscence, and for contouring. This systematic review assessed the impact of different biomaterials employed for guided bone regeneration (GBR) simultaneous to implant placement on the stability of radiographic peri‐implant bone levels at ≥12 months of follow‐up (focused question 1), as well as on bone defect dimension (width/height) changes at re‐assessment after ≥4 months (focused question 2). Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared different biomaterials for GBR were considered. A Bayesian network meta‐analysis (NMA) was performed using a random‐effects model. A ranking probability between treatments was obtained, as well as an estimation of the surface under the cumulative ranking value (SUCRA). Overall, whenever the biological principle of GBR was followed, regeneration occurred in a predictable way, irrespective of the type of biomaterial used. A lower efficacy of GBR treatments was suggested for initially large defects, despite the trend did not reach statistical significance. Regardless of the biomaterial employed, a certain resorption of the augmented bone was observed overtime. While GBR was shown to be a safe and predictable treatment, several complications (including exposure, infection, and soft tissue dehiscence) were reported, which tend to be higher when using cross‐linked collagen membranes.