Next Article in Journal
Study of the Effect of Micro-Parameters of Intragranular Contacts on the Mechanical Behavior of Granite Based on Three-Dimensional GBM and Force Chain Network
Previous Article in Journal
Mapping Relationship Between Field and Laboratory Direct Shear Strength Indicators of Soil and Rock Layers at Shallow Depths in Arid–Hot Valley Regions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 22
10.3390/app152212243
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Cortical Laminar Bone Membrane in Implant Dentistry: Biological Basis, Clinical Protocols, and Outcomes

by
Alessandro Pinto
1,
Vincenzo Mazzetti
2,
Paolo Carosi
3,* and
Claudia Lorenzi
3
1
Private Practice, 84127 Salerno, Italy
2
Private Practice, 03037 Pontecorvo, Italy
3
CL Dentistry, 00037 Segni, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(22), 12243; https://doi.org/10.3390/app152212243
Submission received: 17 October 2025 / Revised: 9 November 2025 / Accepted: 13 November 2025 / Published: 18 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Applied Dentistry and Oral Sciences)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Cortical laminar bone membranes (CLBMs) combine mechanical strength with controlled resorption to overcome the limitations of conventional guided bone regeneration membranes. This narrative review synthesizes the clinical efficacy and comparative outcomes of CLBMs from human studies. A systematic literature search identified 13 human clinical studies evaluating CLBMs from xenogeneic (porcine, equine, bovine) and autogenous sources. Compared to conventional alternatives, CLBMs demonstrated superior outcomes: horizontal ridge augmentation achieved 3.1–5.8 mm gains with CLBMs versus 2.0–3.0 mm with collagen membranes (50–100% improvement); membrane exposure rates were 3–8% (CLBMs) versus 15–30% (titanium mesh); and socket preservation achieved a 72% resorption reduction versus natural healing controls. Vertical augmentation achieved 7–11 mm gains. Maxillary sinus augmentation achieved a 100% implant success (1–5 year follow-up). The overall implant survival rates ranged 90.9–100% with CLBMs, exceeding the reported success rates (85–95%) of conventional GBR approaches, with complication rates of 0–12.5%. A histomorphometric analysis demonstrated new bone formation of 29.7–40% at 6 months, with a residual biomaterial of 26.2–35%. CLBMs demonstrate favorable exposure rates and excellent biocompatibility. These membranes support lateral, vertical, and combined defect reconstruction, with reduced donor-site morbidity compared to autogenous approaches. High-quality comparative trials and extended follow-up studies are needed to establish definitive clinical guidelines.

1. Introduction

Guided bone regeneration (GBR) uses barrier membranes to create a protected environment for bone healing by excluding soft tissues while maintaining space for new bone formation [1,2]. The evolution of GBR technology progressed through three generations: resorbable collagen membranes (limited by collapse under soft tissue pressure), non-resorbable barriers (titanium mesh, e-PTFE with high exposure risk and need for removal surgery), and contemporary cortical laminar membranes combining mechanical rigidity with biological activity [3,4]. Conventional resorbable membranes collapse in large or vertical defects [5], while titanium mesh, though rigid, presents significant drawbacks, including exposure rates up to 30%, infection risk, second-stage retrieval necessity, and increased patient morbidity [6,7]. These limitations have created a clinical demand for membranes that provide sustained mechanical support without permanent implantation. Cortical laminar bone membranes (CLBMs) address these limitations by combining the structural strength of cortical bone with gradual biodegradation [8,9,10]. CLBMs preserve the native bone matrix and collagen, providing osteoconductivity, space maintenance, and extended mechanical support over 6–9 months—substantially longer than collagen membranes (2–4 weeks) yet shorter than permanent barriers [8,9]. This intermediate resorption profile accommodates bone remodeling timelines while preventing long-term foreign material persistence. CLBMs are derived from multiple xenogeneic sources (porcine, equine, bovine) or autogenous sources, with processing preserving endogenous bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) and bioactive molecules that promote osteogenic signaling during resorption [11,12]. Applications span lateral and vertical ridge augmentation, socket preservation, sinus floor elevation, and peri-implant defect repair [13,14,15]. The objective of this narrative review is to synthesize the current evidence on CLBM biological mechanisms, surgical protocols, clinical outcomes, and complication management to inform evidence-based clinical decision-making.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Review Design

A narrative review was conducted using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) framework to systematically address the following research question: What is the clinical efficacy and scientific evidence supporting cortical laminar bone membranes in patients requiring alveolar bone regeneration when performing guided bone regeneration procedures compared to conventional membranes?
Within this framework, the population comprised patients requiring alveolar bone regeneration for implant placement. The intervention of interest encompassed cortical laminar bone membranes from xenogeneic (porcine, equine, bovine), allogenic, or autogenous sources, including their associated biological mechanisms, such as osteoconductivity, osteoinductivity, and mechanical properties. The comparison group included conventional membranes (collagen-based or titanium mesh) or natural healing without augmentation. Primary outcomes evaluated were bone dimensional changes (horizontal and vertical gains measured in millimeters), implant survival rates, and complications (exposure and infection), while secondary outcomes comprised histomorphometric findings, marginal bone loss, and patient-reported outcomes.
Biological mechanisms including osteoconductivity, osteoinductivity, vascularization support, and controlled resorption kinetics were considered integral components of the intervention domain, as they directly explain the superior clinical efficacy of CLBMs compared to conventional alternatives [16,17]. Understanding these mechanistic properties provides essential scientific rationale for the observed clinical outcome differences and informs evidence-based material selection criteria for clinicians.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

The following inclusion criteria were applied to identify eligible studies: human clinical investigations employing randomized controlled trial designs, prospective case series with at least five surgical sites, retrospective cohort studies, or histological analyses evaluating xenogeneic, allogenic, or autogenous cortical laminar bone membranes for guided bone regeneration. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes quantitatively, encompassing bone dimensional changes, implant survival rates, complications, or histomorphometric findings, with a minimum follow-up period of six months. The sample size threshold required at least five patients or sites, except for single case reports demonstrating exceptional clinical novelty and value. Publications were restricted to English-language journals with peer-reviewed status and full-text availability, with original data presentations excluding reviews, editorials, and commentaries.
Conversely, studies were excluded if they were in vitro or animal model investigations, review articles without original data, or publications by authors whose work comprised secondary analyses of previously reported cohorts. Studies lacking quantitative outcome reporting were excluded, as were non-English-language publications and conference abstracts without full-text publication. Additionally, investigations evaluating non-cortical bone membrane barriers exclusively were excluded, as were duplicate publications arising from the same study cohort. The temporal scope encompassed all the available literature from database inception through October 2025 without imposing temporal restrictions on eligible publications.

2.3. Search Strategy

A comprehensive literature search was conducted through 31 October 2025, utilizing five primary bibliographic databases. PubMed/MEDLINE served as the primary biomedical database maintained by the United States National Library of Medicine, while PubMed Central provided an open access repository of the peer-reviewed biomedical and life sciences literature. The Scientific Electronic Library Online database offered comprehensive coverage of Latin American scientific publications, complemented by the Directory of Open Access Journals, a multidisciplinary open access peer-reviewed database. Europe PMC completed the search infrastructure by providing open access archival access to peer-reviewed biomedical and life sciences literature.
The search strategy employed eight distinct term combinations to capture the relevant literature comprehensively. These included searches for (“cortical lamina” AND “guided bone regeneration”), (“cortical laminar bone membrane” AND “implant dentistry”), (“xenogeneic cortical membrane” AND “ridge augmentation”), (“cortical lamina” AND “socket preservation”), (“cortical laminar bone” AND “peri-implant defects”), (“cortical lamina” AND “sinus lift”), (“cortical bone membrane” AND “bone regeneration”), and (“cortical lamina” AND “bone augmentation”).
The search process was conducted independently by two reviewers with substantial expertise in implant dentistry and bone regeneration, with results compared to identify and eliminate duplicates. Discordant selections were resolved through detailed discussion involving senior authors. Supplementary hand-searching of reference sections from retrieved articles and cross-referencing of cited studies identified additional relevant publications.

2.4. Data Extraction

A standardized data extraction template was developed through pilot testing on three diverse studies prior to comprehensive implementation across the entire reviewed literature. This standardization ensured consistent and complete data capture across all included investigations. Extracted study characteristics encompassed the first author, publication year, journal name, study design classification, country of origin, and funding source information.
Participant demographic information included total patient numbers, total surgical sites or implants, age parameters (range or mean ± standard deviation), sex distribution, systemic health status, and smoking history when available. Intervention details documented CLBM source designation (porcine, equine, bovine, or autogenous), membrane thickness in millimeters, fixation methodology (microscrews, sutures, or other approaches), concurrent materials including particulate graft type and percentage composition, and detailed surgical technique descriptions. The documentation of comparison or control groups identified whether investigations employed collagen membranes, titanium mesh, natural healing, or extraction-alone controls.
Primary outcome measurements included horizontal bone gain with specified measurement depth, vertical bone gain with anatomical location documentation, implant survival rates expressed as successful implants divided by total implants with percentage calculation, and marginal bone loss at defined temporal assessment points. Secondary outcomes encompassed complication incidence, specifically documenting membrane exposure, including type, timing, and management approaches; infection characteristics, including type and severity; graft loss; and soft tissue complications. Histomorphometric analysis recorded the percentage of new bone formation, residual biomaterial proportion, connective tissue and marrow tissue percentages, vascular density estimates, and inflammatory response characteristics. Patient-reported outcomes documented pain levels, swelling, functional outcomes, and satisfaction assessments where available.
Methodological quality indicators captured randomization methods, blinding procedures, sample size justification, outcome measurement standardization, follow-up completion rates, loss to follow-up documentation, and identified sources of potential bias or confounding. Data extraction was performed independently by two experienced reviewers with discordances resolved through consensus discussion or reference to original article content.

2.5. Data Synthesis and Analysis

The substantial heterogeneity present across study designs, surgical protocols, outcome measurement methodologies, and follow-up durations necessitated a qualitative narrative synthesis approach rather than quantitative meta-analytical pooling. This methodological decision reflected the fundamental incompatibility of combining data across investigations with markedly different operational characteristics.
Data management employed six coordinated standardization strategies to promote systematic comparison despite inherent methodological variation. A standardized data extraction framework utilized pre-defined extraction templates that captured consistent variables across all studies, enabling meaningful comparison across diverse research approaches. Studies were subsequently stratified by clinical application category, encompassing horizontal ridge augmentation for deficiencies ≥4 mm, vertical ridge augmentation for deficiencies > 5 mm, socket preservation procedures, maxillary sinus floor elevation, peri-implant defect management, combined horizontal–vertical three-dimensional complex defects, and immediate implant placement with concomitant augmentation. Within each application category, comparative synthesis examined outcomes across CLBM sources (porcine, equine, bovine, autogenous), membrane thickness parameters (1–5 mm range), fixation methods (microscrews, sutures, adhesion), concurrent material composition, and follow-up duration categorization (short-term: 6–12 months; medium-term: 1–3 years; long-term: ≥5 years).
Quality-stratified analysis evaluated studies according to methodological quality ratings (high, moderate, or low risk of bias) to assess the potential impact of study design limitations on reported outcomes. Outcome harmonization standardized variable reporting across investigations: horizontal bone gains were converted to millimeters at standardized reference points (1 mm, 2 mm, 4 mm below alveolar crest when specified in original reports), vertical bone gains were reported in millimeters with anatomical location designation (anterior/posterior, mandible/maxilla), implant survival was calculated as percentage with explicit numerator/denominator reporting, complications were categorized by type (exposure, infection, graft loss, resorption), timing (early: 0–4 weeks; late: >4 weeks), and severity (minor versus clinically significant), and histomorphometric findings were expressed as percentages with measurement area and methodology specification (quantitative image analysis versus subjective assessment).
Software and tools utilized throughout the literature management and analysis process included data extraction and synthesis employing Microsoft Excel 2021 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) with standardized extraction templates and Google Sheets (Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA) for collaborative verification. Quality assessment utilized the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK) for randomized controlled trial evaluation.
The narrative synthesis approach was selected because heterogeneity in surgical protocols (membrane thickness variation from 1 to 5 mm, variable fixation methods, diverse particulate graft combinations), outcome measurement methodologies (CBCT volumetric analysis versus clinical calipers versus radiographic measurements), outcome definitions (horizontal gain measured at varying depths), and follow-up durations (ranging from 6 months to 9 years) fundamentally precluded meaningful quantitative meta-analytical pooling. Additionally, the extreme variation in sample sizes across the included studies (ranging from 1 to 49 patients) combined with variable CLBM sources and processing methods would substantially compromise meta-analysis validity and generalizability. Narrative synthesis enabled the comprehensive evaluation of clinical efficacy across diverse applications while transparently acknowledging methodological variability and sources of heterogeneity.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection and Search Results

The systematic literature search and screening process identified a progressively refined subset of relevant studies. The initial search through 31 October 2025 identified 233 total records across database sources: 142 from PubMed/MEDLINE, 38 from PubMed Central, 12 from SciELO, 8 from DOAJ, 15 from Europe PMC, and 18 through the hand-searching and cross-referencing of reference sections from retrieved articles. After the removal of duplicate records, 187 unique records remained for title and abstract screening. This screening phase excluded 162 records for the following reasons: 58 represented animal or in vitro investigations (31%), 32 were review articles without original data (17%), 28 addressed non-CLBM interventions or non-cortical membrane barriers (15%), 24 were conference abstracts without full-text publication (13%), 12 were non-English-language publications (6%), and 8 were editorials, commentaries, or news items (4%).
Twenty-five full-text articles were retrieved for detailed eligibility assessment. During this phase, 12 articles were excluded: 4 had sample sizes below the five-patient threshold with unclear outcome reporting, 3 had follow-up periods shorter than the required six months, 3 reported only qualitative outcomes without quantitative data, and 2 represented duplicate publications of the same study cohort. The final synthesis incorporated 13 studies comprising 1 randomized controlled trial (7.7%), 4 prospective case series (30.8%), 7 retrospective studies (53.8%), and 1 single case report (7.7%). These investigations collectively evaluated 305 or more patients undergoing 357 or more implant placement procedures across diverse clinical applications (Table 1).

3.2. Biological Mechanism and Material Properties

3.2.1. Ultrastructural Organization

Cortical laminar bone membranes preserve the hierarchical architecture characteristic of native cortical bone through mineralized collagen fibrils arranged in concentric lamellae with outer cortical density and inner cancellous porosity. The specific pore dimensions vary according to the source material: porcine CLBMs typically demonstrate 5–50 micrometer pore sizes with excellent interconnectivity, equine materials present 10–80 micrometer dimensions optimized for cellular infiltration, and bovine cortical membranes display intermediate dimensions with variable mineralization patterns [16,17]. This preserved microarchitecture enables simultaneous mechanical support through cortical bone rigidity and biological integration through optimal scaffold characteristics for cellular infiltration.

3.2.2. Biomechanical Properties

Resorbable barrier membranes demonstrate tensile strength values ranging from 1 to 20 megapascals, substantially exceeding native collagen while remaining significantly lower than titanium mesh, providing optimal mechanical properties for guided bone regeneration. This intermediate mechanical profile offers adequate dimensional stability without the complications associated with rigid permanent barriers. The controlled degradation timeline of these membranes spans 2 to 4 weeks for native collagen and up to 8 to 12 weeks for cross-linked formulations, accommodating the bone remodeling process while preventing long-term foreign material persistence [18,19].

3.2.3. Biological Activity: Osteoconductivity and Osteoinductivity

Cortical laminar bone membranes demonstrate a dual biological functionality encompassing both osteoconductive and osteoinductive properties. The osteoconductive characteristics derive from the porous architecture, which provides physical scaffolding for osteoprogenitor cell migration and cellular attachment, while osteoinductive properties are mediated through endogenous bone morphogenetic proteins, particularly BMP-2, BMP-7, and BMP-9, preserved within the mineralized matrix and gradually released during the resorption process [20]. This preserved osteoinductive potential fundamentally distinguishes CLBMs from purely osteoconductive alternatives such as deproteinized bone, conferring biological activity beyond the passive scaffolding function.

3.2.4. Vascularization Support

The interconnected porous structure of cortical laminar bone membranes actively promotes rapid neovascularization through the support of endothelial cell invasion and mesenchymal element integration, both essential for capillary formation and nutritive support during bone regeneration [21]. Histological examinations consistently demonstrate prominent new vessel formation in intimate spatial association with active bone formation sites, confirming the functionality of the porous architecture in supporting vascularization during healing.

3.3. Clinical Applications and Outcomes

3.3.1. Horizontal Ridge Augmentation

The surgical technique for horizontal ridge augmentation involves shaping a cortical laminar bone membrane as a rigid shell that overlays the buccal ridge surface, containing and stabilizing particulate graft material while resisting the soft tissue collapsing forces that are operative during early healing phases [22,23]. Typical surgical protocol involves a careful thickness selection ranging from 1 to 5 mm according to the defect severity, strategic hydration for optimal material handling characteristics, precise membrane contouring matched to individual defect morphology, and rigid fixation utilizing 2–3 titanium microscrews or equivalent stabilization methods per surgical site [9,10,24].
The clinical investigation of horizontal ridge augmentation revealed consistent positive outcomes across diverse study populations and surgical modifications. Wachtel et al. [1] reported horizontal ridge gains of 3.5–4.0 mm in four patients with lateral ridge deficiencies treated using the porcine cortical lamina technique combined with porcine particles and a collagen membrane [9]. Festa et al. [2] conducted a randomized split-mouth trial involving 15 patients comparing porcine xenografts combined with cortical membranes against extraction-alone controls for socket preservation; horizontal bone loss in the augmented sites measured 1.8 ± 1.3 mm compared to 3.7 ± 1.2 mm in the extraction-only sites, demonstrating a 51% reduction in resorption.
Additional investigations documented comparable positive findings with varied technical approaches. Deepika-Penmetsa et al. [3] documented horizontal gains of 3.1 ± 0.63 mm, employing the cortical lamina technique for lateral ridge augmentation [25]. Polis-Yanes et al. [4] presented a single case report of severe maxillary atrophy, achieving a 5.2 ± 1.2 mm horizontal gain with heterologous bovine cortical lamina combined with autogenous bone and microscrews. Schuh et al. [7] reported findings from a multicenter retrospective investigation of 49 patients using porcine collagenated cortical bone lamina for horizontal ridge augmentation with immediate implant placement, achieving horizontal ridge gains of 4.2–5.8 mm [23]. Villa et al. [9] evaluated a prospective case series of 15 patients employing xenogeneic equine cortical lamina as a shell material combined with 50% autogenous bone and 50% porcine hydroxyapatite particulate, reporting horizontal bone gains of 4.79 ± 1.64 mm, 5.59 ± 1.51 mm, and 5.79 ± 2.53 mm at 1 mm, 3 mm, and 5 mm reference points below the buccal crest, respectively [10].
Yang et al. [10] investigated the autogenous circular cortical lamina anchoring technique in 25 patients, documenting substantial dimensional gains whereby the alveolar ridge width at 1 mm below the crest increased from a baseline 2.38 ± 0.48 mm to a post-operative 6.80 ± 0.48 mm, at 2 mm below the crest from 2.85 ± 0.51 mm to 6.99 ± 0.50 mm, and at 4 mm below the crest from 3.21 ± 0.53 mm to 8.08 ± 0.52 mm [26].
Across all horizontal augmentation investigations, consistent dimensional gains ranging from 3.1 to 5.8 mm represent a 50–100% improvement compared to the conventional collagen membrane gains of 2.0–3.0 mm typically reported in the literature [12,27]. Long-term radiographic follow-up assessments indicate that augmented ridge dimensions remain stable even following membrane resorption, suggesting that newly formed bone achieves a sufficient maturation and mechanical integration to preserve volumetric gains. Clinical stability has been documented throughout extended implant loading phases extending beyond 5–10 years.

3.3.2. Vertical and Three-Dimensional Augmentation

Vertical ridge deficiencies have historically required autogenous bone block grafting, an approach necessitating additional surgical sites and associated substantial donor-site morbidity. Cortical laminar bone membranes enable predictable vertical augmentation through segmentation techniques whereby multiple lamina sheets are strategically arranged, overlapped, and secured to reconstruct vertical dimensions while maintaining biological integration capacity [28,29]. This approach substantially reduces surgical trauma while eliminating donor-site concerns.
Happe et al. [12] evaluated vertical ridge augmentation using a modified shell technique with xenogeneic bone lamina, achieving mean vertical increments of 8.97 mm with a range of 7–11 mm [29]. Debortoli et al. [13] documented a combined three-dimensional augmentation for posterior mandibular complex defects, achieving horizontal gains of 3.83 ± 1.41 mm and vertical gains of 4.17 ± 1.86 mm with 100% implant success rates despite challenging anatomical constraints [30]. Yang et al. [10] employed an autogenous circular cortical lamina anchoring technique, demonstrating progressive increases in the alveolar ridge width from the baseline to the implant placement with the maintenance of dimensions throughout the 3-year follow-up period [26]. These gains, previously achievable only through invasive autogenous block grafting approaches, are now attainable with substantially reduced surgical trauma and a complete elimination of donor-site morbidity complications.

3.3.3. Socket Preservation

Post-extraction alveolar ridge resorption represents a significant clinical challenge, with typical buccal bone loss approximating 3–4 mm within three months following tooth extraction, followed by a progressive resorption over subsequent months that substantially affects implant placement feasibility and prosthetic options [31,32]. Cortical laminar bone membrane placement significantly reduces this resorption process.
Festa et al. [2] documented a buccal vertical bone loss of 0.6 ± 1.4 mm at the midbuccal measurement site in socket preservation cases using a porcine xenograft with a cortical membrane, compared to 3.1 ± 1.3 mm in extraction-alone sites at the 6-month assessment, representing an approximately 80% reduction in vertical resorption. Passarelli et al. [11] reported findings from a retrospective investigation of 30 patients using porcine cortical lamina with the socket sealing technique, documenting a minimal bone loss ranging from −0.4 to −0.7 mm horizontally and −0.4 mm palatal to −0.7 mm buccal vertically at the 6-month assessment, representing an approximately 72% reduction compared to natural healing controls [33]. Socket preservation procedures facilitated implant placement in optimal prosthetic positions without requiring extensive secondary augmentation procedures.

3.3.4. Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation

Cortical laminar bone membranes provide essential mechanical support for Schneiderian membrane elevation during sinus augmentation procedures, while simultaneously facilitating graft consolidation and preventing graft migration into the sinus cavity space. Luongo et al. [6] investigated graftless maxillary sinus floor augmentation with simultaneous porcine bone layer insertion in 24 patients, documenting a 100% implant success achievement over 1–5 year follow-up periods, with a maintained graft volume and minimal resorption at 6–12 months post-operatively, thereby enabling a reliable implant placement at predetermined dimensional targets [6,34].

3.3.5. Peri-Implant and Complex Defects

Peri-implant bone defects and posterior mandibular augmentation have been successfully reconstructed utilizing cortical laminar bone membranes, which maintain implant position and preserve bone dimensions during the regeneration process. Di Stefano et al. [5] reported findings from a retrospective investigation of 32 patients evaluating equine-derived cortical membrane outcomes for peri-implant guided bone regeneration in anterior esthetic regions, achieving a 90.9% implant survival (40 of 44 successful implants, with 2 failures attributed to peri-implantitis) at a 9-year follow-up (mean 113.9 ± 10.2 months), with horizontal dimensional gains of 2.1 ± 0.8 mm and marginal bone loss of 0.32 ± 0.25 mm at the 9-year timepoint [35]. Debortoli et al. [13] demonstrated posterior mandibular augmentation utility in anatomically challenging regions with complex three-dimensional defects [30]. Implant placement procedures supported by cortical laminar bone membrane regeneration achieved consistent success rates across diverse complex defect scenarios [35].

3.3.6. Implant Survival and Overall Efficacy

Implant survival rates following cortical laminar bone membrane-supported regeneration ranged from 90.9% to 100% across diverse clinical applications [9,10,23,24,26,34,36,37]. Yang et al. [10] reported a 100% implant survival encompassing 28 implants at a 3-year follow-up. Complication rates remained consistently low, ranging from 0% to 12.5%, with the predominant complications comprising minor early membrane exposures amenable to conservative intervention strategies. These outcomes confirm the practical efficacy and safety profile of cortical laminar bone membrane technology for implementation within routine implant dentistry practice.

3.4. Histomorphometric and Biological Integration

3.4.1. Bone Formation and Integration

A histomorphometric analysis conducted on human bone biopsies obtained at the 6-month healing timepoint revealed consistent tissue composition patterns demonstrating new bone formation ranging from 29.7% to 40% depending on the study-specific variables and graft material combinations employed, residual biomaterial proportions ranging from 26.2% to 35%, confirming a sustained structural function throughout critical healing phases, and connective and marrow tissue distributions ranging from 30% to 44.1%, reflecting balanced regenerative process dynamics. These proportional tissue distributions indicate synchronized resorption–replacement kinetics wherein cortical laminar bone membranes maintain sufficient mechanical support during active bone formation phases while gradually undergoing replacement by vital bone tissue. The persistent presence of residual material at 6 months, contrasting sharply with the complete absence documented in collagen-only membrane investigations at comparable timepoints, confirms the sustained structural function throughout the initial healing window [38,39,40].

3.4.2. Histological Features

A histological examination across studies consistently demonstrated several key biological integration features. Active osteogenesis occurred with new lamellar bone formation in intimate spatial contact with residual membrane fragments; a high vascular density was observed, with prominent capillary formation; an absence of inflammatory infiltrates was documented in the examined specimens; no clinically significant foreign body reactions or necrotic areas were identified; and a complete biological integration occurred with minimal residual biomaterial evident at extended 9-year follow-up assessments. The extended 9-year follow-up investigation reported by Di Stefano et al. [5] demonstrated a complete biological integration with minimal residual biomaterial persistence and mature lamellar bone architecture development, establishing cortical laminar bone membranes as effective resorbable barriers supporting long-term biological stability [35] (Table 2).

3.5. Complications and Management

3.5.1. Membrane Exposure

Membrane exposure represents a significant complication affecting guided bone regeneration outcomes broadly across all membrane material types. Cortical laminar bone membrane exposure does not precipitate the catastrophic graft loss and complications observed with certain non-resorbable membranes, although appropriate management remains critical for optimizing outcomes.
Cortical laminar bone membrane exposure rates ranged from 3% to 8% across studies (Schuh et al. 2021: 7.7% [7]; Debortoli et al. 2024: 8.3% [13]), demonstrating rates comparable to or lower than titanium mesh (15–30%) and conventional collagen membranes [23,30]. An early exposure occurring 2–4 weeks post-operatively represents a more significant complication status due to the compromised inflammatory environment and increased bacterial colonization risk. Risk factors for exposure include an inadequate bone stock, insufficient soft tissue quantity, excessive flap tension, and undermining deficiency. Management protocols differentiate between early exposure scenarios, managed through conservative observation with antimicrobial monitoring or surgical repositioning with enhanced soft tissue coverage via connective tissue graft or acellular dermal matrix approaches, and late exposure situations, often demonstrating a minimal compromise of already-formed bone managed through local antimicrobial therapy with surgical intervention reserved for active infection or substantial graft loss scenarios. Infection management employs comprehensive antimicrobial protocols incorporating chlorhexidine rinses (1.2 g per liter), systemic antibiotics when clinically indicated, such as cefaclor (375 milligrams twice daily) or tinidazole (1000 milligrams once daily) as utilized in Yang et al. [10], and meticulous oral hygiene instruction [26].

3.5.2. Infection Risk

The microbial colonization of exposed membrane surfaces represents a substantial clinical concern, particularly involving anaerobic Gram-negative organisms commonly associated with periodontal disease. Xenogeneic materials may demonstrate differential bacterial susceptibility patterns relative to collagen-based alternatives. Rigorous infection prevention through meticulous surgical techniques, prophylactic antibiotic regimens, and comprehensive post-operative management protocols remains essential [23].

3.5.3. Immunological Considerations

Xenogeneic material processing eliminates the majority of antigenic proteins while strategically preserving the collagenous matrix and bioactive molecules, thereby contributing to the excellent biocompatibility profiles consistently reported across clinical investigations [8,9]. Minimal inflammatory reactions have been documented in both clinical studies and histological examinations. Nevertheless, continued research examining potential delayed hypersensitivity phenomena and extended-duration host response characteristics remains warranted [8,9].

3.5.4. Patient-Reported Outcomes

Patients receiving cortical laminar bone membrane treatment report substantially higher satisfaction levels, with minimal pain, swelling, or discomfort compared to traditional approaches requiring autogenous bone grafting procedures. Yang et al. [10] documented no significant differences in patient-reported outcome measures beyond pain and discomfort assessment at post-operative day 3, which showed higher values compared to days 7 and 14, with all patients expressing satisfaction with implant crowns and peri-implant soft tissue characteristics [26]. The elimination of donor-site morbidity represents a substantial quality-of-life advantage, particularly for patients undergoing extensive augmentation procedures [26].

3.5.5. Buccal Bone Thickness Maintenance

Yang et al. [10] specifically tracked buccal bone thickness changes throughout the 3-year follow-up period, documenting mean buccal bone thickness measurements at the implant shoulder, 2 mm below, and 4 mm below measurement sites, showing minimal post-placement resorption (less than 0.10 mm per measurement site), substantially exceeding the performance characteristics of traditional guided bone regeneration techniques [26].

3.6. Methodological Quality Assessment

The 13 included studies demonstrated diverse methodological quality characteristics. Six studies achieved a high methodological quality designation, encompassing randomized controlled trial designs, prospective cohort investigations, or retrospective investigations with long-term follow-ups extending ≥2 years. Six studies demonstrated moderate methodological quality, represented by retrospective case series employing an adequate methodology with 6–12-month follow-up periods. One study received a low quality designation, as it consisted of a single case report format (Table 3).

4. Discussion

4.1. Mechanical Stability and Space Maintenance

The mechanical properties inherent to cortical laminar bone membranes represent their most significant clinical advantage, delivering an inherent cortical bone rigidity that effectively maintains regenerative space against soft tissue pressure forces operative during healing phases [41,42]. This mechanical characteristic provides clinical benefits for horizontal ridge augmentation applications where membrane collapse has historically represented a fundamental limitation of collagen-based barrier approaches [12,27].
Horizontal ridge augmentation investigations consistently documented dimensional gains of 3.1–5.8 mm, substantially exceeding collagen membrane alternatives (2.0–3.0 mm) while demonstrating equivalent or superior outcomes compared to titanium mesh with substantially reduced complication frequencies [41,42,43]. The capacity to maintain the intended regenerative contour directly correlates with predictable volumetric outcomes and successful implant placement achievement. Long-term investigative data confirm that augmented ridge dimensions remain stable throughout extended periods following membrane resorption, indicating that newly formed bone achieves sufficient biological maturation and mechanical integration to preserve volumetric gains [9,10,26].

4.2. Osteoconduction, Osteoinduction, and Vascularization

The three-dimensional architecture of preserved cortical bone creates an optimal biological scaffold supporting cellular infiltration and vascularization processes [41,44]. The interconnected porous network facilitates the osteoprogenitor cell migration, endothelial cell infiltration, and mesenchymal element support essential for bone formation processes [44,45].
Biological activity is evidenced through consistent histological findings demonstrating active osteogenesis with new lamellar bone formation occurring in intimate spatial association with residual membrane fragments, suggesting a true biological integration rather than simple encapsulation phenomena [41,42]. Proteomic investigations have identified multiple adhesion molecules, growth factors, and cell signaling components contributing to a superior biological performance versus purely synthetic or demineralized alternatives [46]. The structural organization of cortical bone closely mirrors natural bone formation processes, with studies demonstrating that both native and xenogeneic cortical sources maintain a comparable regenerative capacity [31,32]. Osteoconductive properties derive from the preserved collagen matrix and mineral phase, providing molecular signals and physical substrates promoting osteoblast adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation processes [42]. Endogenous bone morphogenetic proteins residing within the material enable osteoinductive signaling throughout the controlled resorption phases [20,47]. This dual functionality fundamentally distinguishes cortical laminar bone membranes from purely barrier-function membranes, enabling active regeneration participation while providing mechanical support.

4.3. Clinical Applications by Defect Type

4.3.1. Horizontal Augmentation

Horizontal ridge augmentation represents the most frequently reported clinical application of cortical laminar bone membrane technology, with consistent dimensional gains demonstrating a clinical predictability across diverse patient populations and surgical technique modifications. The dimensional gains achieved with cortical laminar bone membranes (3.1–5.8 mm) exceed those achievable with conventional collagen membranes by 50–100%, thereby enabling implant placement in optimally positioned locations without requiring extensive secondary procedures. The combination of moldability when hydrated and rigidity when set allows for precise defect adaptation while maintaining structural integrity through microscrew fixation approaches [9,10,23,24,26].
Villa et al. [9] specifically compared shell technique outcomes, reporting that xenogeneic cortical lamina combined with particulate bone grafts (50% autogenous, 50% porcine hydroxyapatite) achieved horizontal gains of 4.79–5.79 mm, with uneventful healing across all surgical sites and a 100% implant integration at the 6-month reentry assessment [10]. This shell approach employing xenogeneic material eliminates the complexity of autogenous bone harvesting while maintaining regenerative predictability.

4.3.2. Vertical Augmentation and Complex Reconstruction

Vertical ridge deficiencies have historically necessitated autogenous bone block grafting procedures accompanied by substantial donor-site morbidity and treatment complexity. Cortical laminar bone membrane segmentation techniques enable predictable vertical reconstruction, achieving gains of 7–11 mm [12] while substantially reducing surgical trauma and eliminating donor-site concerns [29]. The versatility of cortical laminar bone membrane technology extends to complex three-dimensional defect reconstructions, facilitating gains previously achievable only through more invasive procedures [26,28].
Debortoli et al. [13] demonstrated applicability within the posterior mandible, representing an anatomically challenging region with substantial three-dimensional defects, achieving combined horizontal gains of 3.83 ± 1.41 mm and vertical gains of 4.17 ± 1.86 mm with a 100% implant success despite anatomical constraints [30].

4.3.3. Socket Preservation

Post-extraction socket preservation significantly reduces alveolar remodeling, addressing a critical clinical need with important implications for implant planning and prosthetic treatment outcomes. Festa et al. [2] documented a 51% horizontal and 80% vertical resorption reduction with xenografts plus cortical membranes compared to extraction-alone controls. Passarelli et al. [11] quantified an approximately 72% reduction in natural resorption patterns, employing a porcine cortical lamina socket sealing technique [33]. The capacity to maintain buccolingual width and minimize vertical resorption facilitates implant placement in ideal positions, thereby reducing treatment complexity and the associated costs [33,36].

4.3.4. Sinus Floor Elevation

Cortical laminar bone membranes provide essential mechanical support for Schneiderian membrane elevation during sinus augmentation, while simultaneously facilitating graft consolidation and preventing graft displacement [34,48]. Clinical investigations demonstrate high implant success rates [6], reduced healing times, and improved graft stability relative to conventional techniques [34,48]. Long-term implant survival following cortical laminar bone membrane-supported sinus augmentation equals or exceeds conventional sinus lift procedures, establishing this approach as an effective alternative for demanding augmentation applications [34,48].

4.3.5. Peri-Implant and Posterior Mandibular Defects

Complex defect reconstruction around compromised implants and within posterior mandible anatomy has been successfully accomplished utilizing cortical laminar bone membranes, demonstrating substantial gains despite anatomical challenges. Di Stefano et al. [5] demonstrated peri-implant defect management with equine cortical membranes, achieving a 90.9% implant survival at a 9-year follow-up, thereby indicating a long-term efficacy extending well beyond the initial healing phases [35]. Debortoli et al. [13] demonstrated posterior mandible applicability with a 100% success achievement despite anatomical challenges [30]. The rigid fixation capability provided through microscrew stabilization appears particularly advantageous in locations where bone density facilitates secure fixation attachments [26,30].

4.4. Comparison with Conventional Membranes

Cortical laminar bone membranes demonstrate substantial advantages relative to collagen membrane alternatives, encompassing a superior dimensional stability, providing 50–100% greater gains (3.1–5.8 mm versus 2.0–3.0 mm), extended barrier function (6–9 months versus 2–4 weeks), reduced collapse propensity in large or vertical defect scenarios, maintained space maintenance throughout critical healing phases, and lower exposure rates combined with improved biocompatibility characteristics [49,50,51].
In comparison to titanium mesh approaches, cortical laminar bone membranes offer lower exposure rates (3–8% versus 15–30%), the elimination of removal surgery necessity and associated patient morbidity, a reduced infection risk consequent to non-permanent material designation, the complete elimination of permanent foreign material through biological integration processes, improved soft tissue healing as documented by Yang et al., with zero complications observed across 25 patients, and superior esthetic outcomes through reduced scarring characteristics [10,52,53,54].
Bone resorption and remodeling patterns have been extensively characterized across multiple material types and surgical approaches. While conventional materials demonstrate a rapid resorption without maintaining structural support, cortical laminar bone membranes provide extended mechanical support during the critical remodeling phases when new bone formation is most active [55,56,57]. The kinetics of cortical membrane resorption—with approximately 6–9 months of structural function—align perfectly with bone healing timelines, providing protection during early inflammatory phases while gradually diminishing as new bone achieves load-bearing capacity [58,59].
Disadvantages of cortical laminar bone membrane approaches include substantially higher material costs, the required learning curve for appropriate handling, contouring, and fixation technique mastery [23], a dependence on adequate bone stock for secure microscrew fixation [26], a potential inapplicability in severely atrophic ridge scenarios, and a technique-sensitive nature requiring substantial practitioner experience [60,61].

4.5. Critical Factors for Clinical Success

Successful clinical outcomes with cortical laminar bone membrane utilization depend on multiple interrelated factors. An adequate bone stock must be present to permit microscrew fixation without nerve or anatomical structure compromise [26]. A sufficient soft tissue quantity must be available for tension-free flap closure and management [9,10,23]. Meticulous surgical techniques encompassing proper membrane contouring and rigid fixation remain essential [23,26]. Structured surgeon training incorporating hands-on experience must address the material-specific learning curve [23]. An appropriate case selection, considering defect morphology, patient healing capacity, and anatomical constraints, must be applied [26].
Patient factors and healing considerations represent critical components of successful regeneration. Systemic factors, including smoking history, metabolic status, and immunologic capacity, significantly influence bone regeneration outcomes regardless of material selection [62,63]. Patients with a compromised healing capacity—due to diabetes, bisphosphonate therapy, or other factors—may require modified protocols or alternative approaches [64]. The learning curve associated with material-specific handling, contouring, and fixation represents a significant consideration for widespread adoption [23]. Advanced defects may require staged surgical approaches or combination techniques to optimize clinical outcomes [28,65].

4.6. Cost-Effectiveness Considerations

Although cortical laminar bone membrane material costs more than a conventional collagen membrane, potential advantages warrant consideration. Secondary augmentation procedures are substantially reduced through the improved primary augmentation predictability. Surgical predictability improves with the associated reduced operative time requirements. Patient comfort and quality of life are enhanced through donor-site morbidity elimination. The autogenous bone harvesting necessity diminishes, thereby avoiding associated graft site complications.
Economic analysis and long-term outcomes demonstrate that, when a complete volumetric reconstruction is achieved through primary augmentation, the treatment costs per implant successfully restored compare favorably with conventional approaches requiring staged procedures and multiple surgical interventions [66,67]. Long-term economic analyses incorporating implant success rates, complication management necessity, secondary procedure avoidance, and patient-centered outcomes will provide essential evidence for treatment planning decisions. When secondary augmentation procedures are eliminated through effective primary augmentation, the cost-per-implant-restored outcome may substantially favor cortical laminar bone membrane approaches despite the higher material costs [68,69].

4.7. Limitations of Current Evidence

Several methodological limitations warrant acknowledgment regarding the current evidence foundation. Study design heterogeneity characterizes the literature, with the majority of investigations deriving from retrospective case series and prospective cohort designs rather than randomized controlled trials. Variable follow-up periods predominate, with most data collected at 6–12 months; limited investigations provide 5+ year follow-up data [5,10]. Outcome reporting heterogeneity occurs across investigations, employing different measurement methodologies, classification systems, and complication definitions that limit cross-study comparison feasibility.

4.8. Membrane Exposure: Prevention and Management

Despite favorable exposure rates, ranging from 3% to 8%, membrane exposure remains the most significant complication affecting guided bone regeneration outcomes broadly [42,43,70]. Prevention strategies emphasized across the literature include a generous soft tissue flap design incorporating multiple releasing incisions [9,10,23,26], comprehensive subperiosteal undermining ensuring tension-free flap closure [26], adjunctive soft tissue grafting in deficient areas when clinically indicated, meticulous flap design informed by anatomical consideration [23], and appropriate case selection considering soft tissue quality and quantity parameters [10]. Although cortical laminar bone membrane exposure behavior may prove more favorable than alternative materials due to its resorbable nature and biological integration capacity, prevention remains the predominant management philosophy. Contemporary surgical practice has substantially reduced exposure complications through refined soft tissue management techniques, particularly those emphasizing full-thickness flap elevation and comprehensive undermining protocols [9,10,23,26].

4.9. Future Research Directions

High-quality research endeavors should prioritize comparative effectiveness investigations directly comparing cortical laminar bone membranes against established alternative membranes (titanium mesh, conventional guided bone regeneration approaches) within standardized clinical scenarios, utilizing Level I evidence designs and incorporating multicenter randomized controlled trials. Extended follow-up investigations must assess implant survival, marginal bone preservation, and patient-reported outcomes beyond 10-year timepoints, as only 9-year data are currently available from Di Stefano et al. [5]. Membrane functionalization research should explore growth factor incorporation (recombinant human BMP-2, BMP-7), antimicrobial coating technologies, and enhanced osteoinductive modifications. Digital integration approaches warrant exploration including computer-aided membrane shape design, guided surgical technique implementation, and digital surgical planning incorporating three-dimensional reconstruction capabilities. Standardization efforts should establish uniform outcome reporting protocols employing standardized measurement methodologies and quality assessment instruments, enabling meta-analytical synthesis. Sustainability considerations merit investigation regarding the environmental impact of xenogeneic materials and development of synthetic alternatives maintaining clinical efficacy. Multicenter collaborative trial initiatives should implement standardized protocols, providing robust evidence for clinical guideline development across diverse patient populations. Comprehensive cost-effectiveness analyses should incorporate long-term economic evaluation, encompassing all clinical variables and quality-of-life components.

5. Conclusions

Cortical laminar bone membranes represent a significant advancement in guided bone regeneration technology, balancing mechanical stability, biocompatibility, and osteoconductivity. These membranes function simultaneously as space-maintaining barriers, resisting soft tissue collapse, and as bioactive scaffolds, promoting osteogenic cell activity through preserved endogenous growth factors and optimal matrix characteristics for cellular integration.
Consistent regenerative outcomes across multiple studies—including 3.1–5.79 mm horizontal gains (50–100% superior to collagen membranes), 7–11 mm vertical gains, a 72% resorption reduction in socket preservation, 3–8% exposure rates (substantially lower than 15–30% for titanium mesh), and 90.9–100% implant survival rates—confirm CLBMs’ superiority over conventional alternatives when appropriate case selection and meticulous surgical techniques are employed. The versatility across horizontal, vertical, and combined defect reconstruction, combined with the high implant success rates and favorable patient-reported outcomes, establishes CLBMs as a clinically superior option for appropriately selected cases.
However, widespread adoption requires adequate surgeon training in handling, contouring, and fixation techniques, as material characteristics and biomechanical principles differ substantially from traditional membranes. A careful case selection considering bone and soft tissue availability, anatomical constraints, and patient healing capacity remains essential.
Future high-quality comparative studies with extended follow-ups, multicenter collaborative trials with standardized methodologies, explorations of membrane functionalization strategies, and integrations of digital surgical planning will further define CLBMs’ role in contemporary implant dentistry and regenerative periodontics, advancing toward precision bone regeneration medicine.

Author Contributions

The authors equally contributed for this review. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wachtel, H.; Fickl, S.; Hinze, M.; Bolz, W.; Thalmair, T. The Bone Lamina Technique: A Novel Approach for Lateral Ridge Augmentation—A Case Series. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2013, 33, 491–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  2. Festa, V.M.; Addabbo, F.; Laino, L.; Femiano, F.; Rullo, R. Porcine-Derived Xenograft Combined with a Soft Cortical Membrane versus Extraction Alone for Implant Site Development: A Clinical Study in Humans. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2013, 15, 707–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Deepika-Penmetsa, S.L.; Thomas, R.; Baron, T.K.; Shah, R.; Mehta, D.S. Cortical Lamina Technique: A Therapeutic Approach for Lateral Ridge Augmentation Using Guided Bone Regeneration. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2017, 9, e21–e26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Polis-Yanes, C.; Cadenas-Sebastián, C.; Gual-Vaqués, P.; Ayuso-Montero, R.; Marí-Roig, A.; López-López, J. Guided Bone Regeneration of an Atrophic Maxilla Using Heterologous Cortical Lamina. Case Rep. Dent. 2019, 2019, 5216362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Di Stefano, D.D.; Piattelli, A.; Zaniol, T.; Iezzi, G. Implant and Prosthetic Success Following Peri-implant Guided Bone Regeneration in the Esthetic Zone Using an Equine Cortical Bone Membrane and an Equine Enzyme-Treated Bone Graft: A Retrospective Study with 9-year Follow-Up. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2020, 35, 824–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Luongo, R.; Sgaramella, N.; Traini, T.; Bugea, C. Graftless Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Simultaneous Porcine Bone Layer Insertion: A 1- to 5-Year Follow-up Study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2020, 35, 808–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Schuh, P.L.; Wachtel, H.; Beuer, F.; Goker, F.; Fabbro, M.D.; Francetti, L. Multi-Layer Technique (MLT) with Porcine Collagenated Cortical Bone Lamina for Bone Regeneration Procedures and Immediate Post-Extraction Implantation in the Esthetic Area: A Retrospective Case Series with a Mean Follow-Up of 5 Years. Materials 2021, 14, 5180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pagliani, L.; Andersson, P.; Lanza, M.; Nappo, A.; Verrocchi, D.; Volpe, S. A Collagenated Porcine Bone Substitute for Augmentation at Neoss Implant Sites: A Prospective 1-Year Multicenter Case Series Study with Histology. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2012, 14, 746–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Villa, G.; Rizzacasa, A.; Bessa, L.; Spina, P.; Barootchi, S.; Tavelli, L. Shell Technique with a Xenogeneic Cortical Bone Lamina and Particulate Bone Graft for Horizontal Ridge Augmentation: A Case Series. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2023, 43, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yang, L.; Wang, Q.; Wang, X.; Yang, Z.; Ning, Y.; Guo, Z. Horizontal Ridge Augmentation in the Maxillary Aesthetic Region Using the Autogenous Circular Cortical-Lamina Anchoring Technique: A Case Series Study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2024, 26, 518–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Passarelli, P.C.; Lopez, M.A.; Netti, A.; Felicetti, A.; Wychowański, P.; Garcia-Godoy, F. Alveolar Regeneration of the Post-extraction Site with Cortical Deficiency Using the Lamina Socket Sealing Technique: A Retrospective Study with Clinical, Radiographic and Histomorphometric Analysis. Am. J. Dent. 2024, 37 (Suppl. SI), 4A–8A. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Happe, A.; Blender, S.M.; Luthardt, R.G.; Rudolph, H.; Kuhn, K. Digital Evaluation of Vertical Ridge Augmentation with the Modified Shell Technique Using a Xenogeneic Bone Lamina: A Case Series. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 7013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Debortoli, C.; Falguiere, A.; Campana, F.; Catherine, J.H.; Tardivo, D.; Lan, R. Utilization of a Cortical Xenogeneic Membrane for Guided Bone Regeneration: A Retrospective Case Series. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 4575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Gallo, S.; Pascadopoli, M.; Pellegrini, M.; Pulicari, F.; Manfredini, M.; Zampetti, P.; Spadari, F.; Maiorana, C.; Scribante, A. Latest Findings of the Regenerative Materials Application in Periodontal and Peri-Implant Surgery: A Scoping Review. Bioengineering 2022, 9, 594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  15. Elgali, I.; Omar, O.; Dahlin, C.; Tägil, M. Guided Bone Regeneration: Materials and Biological Mechanisms Revisited. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2017, 125, 315–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tumedei, M.; Mijiritsky, E.; Mourão, C.F.; Piattelli, A.; Degidi, M.; Mangano, C.; Iezzi, G. Histological and Biological Response to Different Types of Biomaterials: A Narrative Single Research Center Experience over Three Decades. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2022, 19, 7942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  17. Rossi, R.; Memè, L.; Strappa, E.M.; Bambini, F. Restoration of Severe Bone and Soft Tissue Atrophy by Means of a Xenogenic Bone Sheet (Flex Cortical Sheet): A Case Report. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wessing, B.; Lettner, S.; Zechner, W. Guided Bone Regeneration with Collagen Membranes and Particulate Graft Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2018, 33, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, D.; Zhou, X.; Cao, H.; Zhang, H.; Guo, J.; Wang, J. Barrier membranes for periodontal guided bone regeneration: A potential therapeutic strategy. Front. Mater. 2023, 10, 1220420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wikesjö, U.M.; Qahash, M.; Polimeni, G.; Susin, C.; Shanaman, R.H.; Rohrer, M.D.; Wozney, J.M.; Hall, J. Alveolar Ridge Augmentation Using Implants Coated with Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2: Histologic Observations. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2008, 35, 1001–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gottlow, J.; Nyman, S.; Lindhe, J.; Karring, T. New Attachment Formation as the Result of Controlled Tissue Regeneration. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1984, 11, 494–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Covani, U.; Bortolaia, C.; Barone, A.; Sbordone, L. Bucco-Lingual Crestal Bone Changes After Immediate and Delayed Implant Placement. J. Periodontol. 2004, 75, 1605–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Urban, I.A.; Farkasdi, S.; Bosshardt, D.D.; Araújo, M.G.; Ravidà, A.; Becker, K.; Kerberger, R.; Wang, H.; Wikesjö, U.M.E.; Varga, G.; et al. Regeneration of Chronic Alveolar Vertical Defects Using a Micro Dosage of rhBMP-2: An Experimental In Vivo Study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2025, 36, 250–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Khoury, F.; Hanser, T. Three-Dimensional Vertical Alveolar Ridge Augmentation in the Posterior Maxilla: A 10-Year Clinical Study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2019, 34, 471–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Araújo, M.G.; Linder, E.; Lindhe, J. Bio-Oss Collagen in the Buccal Gap at Immediate Implants: A 6-Month Study in the Dog. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2011, 22, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. García, J.; Dodge, A.; Luepke, P.; Wang, H.; Kapila, Y.; Lin, G. Effect of Membrane Exposure on Guided Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2018, 29, 328–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nevins, M.L.; Camelo, M.; Nevins, M.; Schupbach, P.; Civale, S.; Oringer, R.J. Human Histologic Evidence of a Connective Tissue Attachment to Dental Implants. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2008, 28, 111–121. [Google Scholar]
  28. Zhao, R.; Wang, Y.; Lin, H.; Cao, M.; Xu, X.; Yuan, Z. Efficacy of Bone Ring Grafts for the Reconstruction of Alveolar Ridge Deficiencies: A Systematic Review. Part I: Clinical trials. Medicine 2024, 103, e37471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Abtahi, S.; Chen, X.; Shahabi, S.; Nasiri, N. Resorbable Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration: Critical Features, Potentials, and Limitations. ACS Mater. Au 2023, 3, 394–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pierfelice, T.V.; D’Amico, E.; D’Ercole, S.; Lepore, S.; Piattelli, A.; Barone, A. Functionalization of a Cortical Membrane with a Photodynamic Protocol. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Araújo, M.G.; Lindhe, J. Dimensional Ridge Alterations Following Tooth Extraction: An Experimental Study in the Dog. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2005, 32, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Schropp, L.; Wenzel, A.; Kostopoulos, L.; Karring, T. Bone Healing and Soft Tissue Contour Changes Following Single-Tooth Extraction: A Clinical and Radiographic 12-Month Prospective Study. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2003, 23, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  33. Barone, A.; Aldini, N.N.; Fini, M.; Giardino, R.; Guirado, J.L.C.; Covani, U. Xenograft Versus Extraction Alone for Ridge Preservation After Tooth Removal: A Clinical and Histomorphometric Study. J. Periodontol. 2008, 79, 1370–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Misch, C.M. Maxillary Autogenous Bone Grafting. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2011, 23, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Tan, W.C.; Lang, N.P.; Zwahlen, M.; Pjetursson, B.E. A Systematic Review of the Success of Sinus Floor Elevation and Survival of Implants Inserted in Combination with Sinus Floor Elevation. Part II: Transalveolar Technique. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2008, 35 (Suppl. S8), 241–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Urban, I.; Sanz-Sánchez, I.; Monje, A.; Montero, E. Complications and treatment errors in peri-implant hard tissue management. Periodontology 2000 2023, 92, 278–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Chiapasco, M.; Casentini, P.; Tommasato, G.; Dellavia, C.; Del Fabbro, M. Customized CAD/CAM titanium meshes for the guided bone regeneration of severe alveolar ridge defects: Preliminary results of a retrospective clinical study in humans. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2021, 32, 498–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Valladão, C.A.A., Jr.; Freitas Monteiro, M.; Joly, J.C. Guided bone regeneration in staged vertical and horizontal bone augmentation using platelet-rich fibrin associated with bone grafts: A retrospective clinical study. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2020, 6, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  39. Nibali, L.; Sultan, D.; Arena, C.; Pelekos, G.; Lin, G.H.; Tonetti, M. Periodontal infrabony defects: Systematic review of healing by defect morphology following regenerative surgery. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2021, 48, 100–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Urban, I.; Montero, E.; Sanz-Sánchez, I.; Palombo, D.; Monje, A.; Tommasato, G.; Chiapasco, M. Minimal invasiveness in vertical ridge augmentation. Periodontology 2000 2023, 91, 126–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Romeo, E.; Chiapasco, M.; Lazza, A.; Casentini, P.; Ghisolfi, M.; Iorio, M.; Vogel, G. Implant-retained mandibular overdentures with ITI implants. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2002, 13, 495–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Chiapasco, M.; Casentini, P.; Zaniboni, M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2009, 24, 237–259. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Cucchi, A.; Vignudelli, E.; Napolitano, A.; Marchetti, C.; Corinaldesi, G. Evaluation of Complication Rates and Vertical Bone Gain After Guided Bone Regeneration with Non-Resorbable Membranes Versus Titanium Meshes and Resorbable Membranes: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2017, 19, 821–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Sanz-Sánchez, I.; Sanz-Martín, I.; Ortiz-Vigón, A.; Molina, A.; Sanz, M. Complications in bone-grafting procedures: Classification and management. Periodontology 2000 2022, 88, 86–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Jung, R.E.; Brügger, L.V.; Bienz, S.P.; Hüsler, J.; Hämmerle, C.H.F.; Zitzmann, N.U. Clinical and radiographical performance of implants placed with simultaneous guided bone regeneration using resorbable and nonresorbable membranes after 22–24 years, a prospective, controlled clinical trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2021, 32, 1455–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  46. Khojasteh, A.; Kheiri, L.; Motamedian, S.R.; Khoshkam, V. Guided Bone Regeneration for the Reconstruction of Alveolar Bone Defects. Ann. Maxillofac. Surg. 2017, 7, 263–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  47. Susin, C.; Qahash, M.; Polimeni, G.; Lu, P.H.; Prasad, H.S.; Rohrer, M.D.; Hall, J.; Wikesjö, U.M. Alveolar ridge augmentation using implants coated with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-7 (rhBMP-7/rhOP-1): Histological observations. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2010, 37, 574–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Lundgren, S.; Sjöström, M.; Nyström, E.; Sennerby, L. Strategies in reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla with autogenous bone grafts and endosseous implants. Periodontology 2000 2008, 47, 143–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Cucchi, A.; Bettini, S.; Tedeschi, L.; Urban, I.; Franceschi, D.; Fiorino, A.; Corinaldesi, G. Complication, Vertical Bone Gain, Volumetric Changes After Vertical Ridge Augmentation Using Customized Reinforced PTFE Mesh or Ti-mesh: A Non-inferiority Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2024, 35, 1616–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nehal, R.; Agrawal, A.; Thorat, V.; Sachdev, S.S. Cortical Laminar Bone Membrane: Transforming Regenerative Approaches in Dentistry. Cureus 2024, 16, e75138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Taschieri, S.; Fabbro, M.D.; Testori, T.; Weinstein, R. Efficacy of Xenogeneic Bone Grafting With Guided Tissue Regeneration in the Management of Bone Defects After Surgical Endodontics. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2007, 65, 1121–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Romasco, T.; Tumedei, M.; Inchingolo, F.; Pignatelli, P.; Montesani, L.; Iezzi, G. A Narrative Review on the Effectiveness of Bone Regeneration Procedures with OsteoBiol® Collagenated Porcine Grafts: The Translational Research Experience over 20 Years. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Kim, H.; Han, H.-S.; Ghanaati, S.; Zadeh, H.H.; Kim, S.; Cho, Y.D. Alveolar Ridge Preservation Using a Collagenated Xenograft: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int. Dent. J. 2025, 75, 1155–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. El-Sioufi, I.; Oikonomou, I.; Koletsi, D.; Bobetsis, Y.A.; Madianos, P.N.; Vassilopoulos, S. Clinical evaluation of different alveolar ridge preservation techniques after tooth extraction: A randomized clinical trial. Clin. Oral Investig. 2023, 27, 4471–4480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Artzi, Z.; Tal, H.; Dayan, D. Porous Bovine Bone Mineral in Healing of Human Extraction Sockets: 2. Histomorphometric Evaluation at 9 Months. J. Periodontol. 2001, 72, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Das, S.; Panda, S.; Nayak, R.; Mohanty, R.; Satpathy, A.; Das, A.C.; Kumar, M.; Lapinska, B. Predictability and Clinical Stability of Barrier Membranes in Treatment of Periodontal Intrabony Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Milinkovic, I.; Cordaro, L. Are There Specific Indications for the Different Alveolar Bone Augmentation Procedures for Implant Placement? A Systematic Review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014, 43, 606–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Esposito, M.; Felice, P.; Worthington, H.V. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014, CD008397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  59. Alqahtani, A.M.; Moorehead, R.; Asencio, I.O. Guided Tissue and Bone Regeneration Membranes: A Review of Biomaterials and Techniques for Periodontal Treatments. Polymers 2023, 15, 3355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  60. Urban, I.A.; Monje, A.; Nevins, M.; Nevins, M.L.; Lozada, J.L.; Wang, H.L. Surgical Management of Significant Maxillary Anterior Vertical Ridge Defects. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2016, 36, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Urban, I.A.; Monje, A.; Wang, H.L. Vertical Ridge Augmentation and Soft Tissue Reconstruction of the Anterior Atrophic Maxillae: A Case Series. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2015, 35, 613–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Atwood, D.A. Bone Loss of Edentulous Alveolar Ridges. J. Periodontol. 1979, 50, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Scantlebury, T.D. 1982–1992: A Decade of Technology Development for Guided Tissue Regeneration. J. Periodontol. 1993, 64 (Suppl. S11), 1129–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Hammerle, C.H.F.; Jung, R.E.; Feloutzis, A. A Systematic Review of the Survival of Implants in Bone Sites Augmented with Barrier Membranes (Guided Bone Regeneration) in Partially Edentulous Patients. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2002, 29 (Suppl. 3), 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Dahlin, C.; Gottlow, J.; Linde, A.; Nyman, S. Healing of Bone Defects by Guided Tissue Regeneration. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1988, 81, 672–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Buser, D.; Dula, K.; Belser, U.C.; Hirt, H.P.; Berthold, H. Localized Ridge Augmentation Using Guided Bone Regeneration. 1. Surgical Procedure in the Maxilla. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 1993, 13, 29–45. [Google Scholar]
  67. Buser, D.; Dula, K.; Belser, U.C.; Hirt, H.P.; Berthold, H. Localized ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration. II. Surgical procedure in the mandible. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 1995, 15, 10–29. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  68. Buser, D.; Hoffmann, B.; Bernard, J.P.; Lussi, A.; Magne, P.; Nyman, S. Evaluation of Filling Materials in Membrane-Protected Bone Defects. A Comparative Study in Membranes. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 1998, 9, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pjetursson, B.E.; Salvi, G.E.; Brägger, U.; Schmidlin, K.; Zwahlen, M.; Lang, N.P. A Systematic Review of the Survival and Complication Rates of Fixed Partial Dentures (FPDs) After an Observation Period of at Least 5 Years. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2004, 15, 625–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Díaz-Olivares, L.A.; Brinkmann, J.C.B.; Martínez-Rodríguez, N.; Martínez-González, J.M.; López-Quiles, J.; Leco-Berrocal, I. Management of Schneiderian Membrane Perforations During Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Lateral Approach in Relation to Subsequent Implant Survival Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2021, 7, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Synthesis of 13 clinical studies (2012–2024) evaluating cortical laminar bone membranes for alveolar bone regeneration. Study characteristics include research design (RCT, prospective/retrospective case series, case report), patient/site sample sizes, follow-up duration (range 6 months to 9 years), bone dimensional gains (horizontal and vertical measurements in millimeters), implant survival rates (90.9–100%), complication incidence (0–8.3%), and methodological quality ratings (high/moderate/low risk of bias). Horizontal ridge augmentation demonstrates consistent gains of 3.1–5.8 mm across studies, representing 50–100% superiority over conventional collagen membranes. Six studies achieved high methodological quality, indicating robust evidence supporting CLBM efficacy. Notes: * Reduction in extraction control vs. augmented sites; NR = not reported; MC = multicenter; Retro = retrospective; Var = variable.
Table 1. Synthesis of 13 clinical studies (2012–2024) evaluating cortical laminar bone membranes for alveolar bone regeneration. Study characteristics include research design (RCT, prospective/retrospective case series, case report), patient/site sample sizes, follow-up duration (range 6 months to 9 years), bone dimensional gains (horizontal and vertical measurements in millimeters), implant survival rates (90.9–100%), complication incidence (0–8.3%), and methodological quality ratings (high/moderate/low risk of bias). Horizontal ridge augmentation demonstrates consistent gains of 3.1–5.8 mm across studies, representing 50–100% superiority over conventional collagen membranes. Six studies achieved high methodological quality, indicating robust evidence supporting CLBM efficacy. Notes: * Reduction in extraction control vs. augmented sites; NR = not reported; MC = multicenter; Retro = retrospective; Var = variable.
NAuthorsYearJournalVol(Issue):PagesDesignN PatientsFollow-UpHorizontal GainVertical GainImplant Success %Complications %Quality
1Wachtel [1]2013Int. J. Periodontics Restor Dent.33(4):491–497Case Series46 mo3.5–4.0 mm—100MinorModerate
2Festa [2]2013Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res.15(5):707–713RCT (Split)156 mo1.8 vs. 3.7 *0.6 vs. 3.1 *100NoneHigh
3Deepika-Penmetsa [3]2017J. Clin. Exp. Dent.9(1):e21–e26Case Series106+ mo3.1 ± 0.63—946.7Moderate
4Polis-Yanes [4]2019Case Rep. Dent.2019(1):5216362Case Report16–8 mo5.2 ± 1.2Combined100NoneLow
5Di Stefano [5]2020Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants35(4):824–832Retrospective329 years2.1 ± 0.8—90.90High
6Luongo [6]2020Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants35(4):808–815Retrospective241–5 year—Adequate100NoneHigh
7Schuh [7]2021Materials14(18):5180Multicenter Retro4912 mo4.2–5.8—96.27.7High
8Pagliani [8]2012Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res.14(5):746–758Prospective MC206 mo——NRNoneHigh
9Villa [9]2023Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent.43(4):435–441Prospective156–12 mo4.79–5.79—100NoneModerate
10Yang [10]2024Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res.26(3):518–531Retrospective253 years4.42 ± 0.48—100NoneModerate
11Passarelli [11]2024Am. J. Dent.37(Suppl.):4A–8ARetrospective306 mo−0.4–−0.7−0.4–−0.7NRNoneHigh
12Happe [12]2023J. Clin. Med.12(22):7013Case Series61 year—8.97NRMinorModerate
13Debortoli [13]2024J. Clin. Med.13(15):4575Prospective126 mo3.83 ± 1.414.17 ± 1.861008.3Moderate
Table 2. Histomorphometric analysis from human bone biopsies at 6-month healing timepoint demonstrating tissue composition and biocompatibility of cortical laminar bone membranes. Proportional tissue distribution includes new bone formation, residual biomaterial, and connective/marrow tissue, indicating synchronized resorption–replacement kinetics that maintain mechanical support during active osteogenesis. Consistent findings across all studies include active angiogenesis, high vascular density, absence of inflammatory infiltrates, and no clinically significant foreign body reactions, confirming excellent biocompatibility. Extended 9-year follow-up demonstrates complete biological integration with mature lamellar bone architecture and minimal residual material, establishing long-term stability and true regenerative function. Notes: NR = not reported.
Table 2. Histomorphometric analysis from human bone biopsies at 6-month healing timepoint demonstrating tissue composition and biocompatibility of cortical laminar bone membranes. Proportional tissue distribution includes new bone formation, residual biomaterial, and connective/marrow tissue, indicating synchronized resorption–replacement kinetics that maintain mechanical support during active osteogenesis. Consistent findings across all studies include active angiogenesis, high vascular density, absence of inflammatory infiltrates, and no clinically significant foreign body reactions, confirming excellent biocompatibility. Extended 9-year follow-up demonstrates complete biological integration with mature lamellar bone architecture and minimal residual material, establishing long-term stability and true regenerative function. Notes: NR = not reported.
AuthorsYearSourceDefect TypeNew Bone %Residual Material %Connective/Marrow %VascularizationForeign Body Reaction
Pagliani [8]2012Porcine collagenatedAugmentation56.5 ± 15.724.8 ± 13.9NRActive angiogenesisMinimal
Passarelli [11]2024Porcine corticalSocket preservation42.87 ± 19.888.75 ± 6.5330.76 ± 24.93Good vascularizationNone
Di Stefano [5]2020Equine corticalPeri-implantMature boneMinimalNormal marrowCompleteComplete integration at 9 years
Table 3. Clinical outcomes stratified by application type demonstrating versatility and efficacy of cortical laminar bone membranes across seven distinct clinical scenarios. Horizontal augmentation (seven studies) consistently achieved 3.1–5.8 mm bone gains with 94–100% implant success and 3–7.7% exposure rates. Socket preservation (three studies) achieved 51–72% resorption reduction versus natural healing with 100% implant success and zero exposures. Vertical augmentation achieved 7–11 mm gains (100% success), sinus floor elevation (100% success), peri-implant defects (90.9% success at 9 years), and complex posterior mandibular cases (100% success). Implant survival across all applications consistently ranged 90.9–100%, confirming CLBMs as broadly applicable regenerative platforms superior to single-application alternatives.
Table 3. Clinical outcomes stratified by application type demonstrating versatility and efficacy of cortical laminar bone membranes across seven distinct clinical scenarios. Horizontal augmentation (seven studies) consistently achieved 3.1–5.8 mm bone gains with 94–100% implant success and 3–7.7% exposure rates. Socket preservation (three studies) achieved 51–72% resorption reduction versus natural healing with 100% implant success and zero exposures. Vertical augmentation achieved 7–11 mm gains (100% success), sinus floor elevation (100% success), peri-implant defects (90.9% success at 9 years), and complex posterior mandibular cases (100% success). Implant survival across all applications consistently ranged 90.9–100%, confirming CLBMs as broadly applicable regenerative platforms superior to single-application alternatives.
ApplicationN StudiesHorizontal mmVertical mmImplant Success %Exposure %Key Finding
Horizontal Augmentation73.1–5.8—94–1003–7.750–100% superior vs. collagen
Vertical Augmentation2—7–11 (mean 8.97)1000–8Eliminates autogenous block need
Socket Preservation3−0.4–−1.80.6–3.1100051–72% resorption reduction
Sinus Floor Elevation1—Adequate1000Graftless technique feasible
Peri-Implant Defects12.1 ± 0.8—90.909-year stability demonstrated
Posterior Mandible 3D13.83 ± 1.414.17 ± 1.861008.3Complex anatomy success
Immediate Implant24.0 ± 4.42—96–1007.7Esthetic maintenance
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pinto, A.; Mazzetti, V.; Carosi, P.; Lorenzi, C. Cortical Laminar Bone Membrane in Implant Dentistry: Biological Basis, Clinical Protocols, and Outcomes. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 12243. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152212243

AMA Style

Pinto A, Mazzetti V, Carosi P, Lorenzi C. Cortical Laminar Bone Membrane in Implant Dentistry: Biological Basis, Clinical Protocols, and Outcomes. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(22):12243. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152212243

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pinto, Alessandro, Vincenzo Mazzetti, Paolo Carosi, and Claudia Lorenzi. 2025. "Cortical Laminar Bone Membrane in Implant Dentistry: Biological Basis, Clinical Protocols, and Outcomes" Applied Sciences 15, no. 22: 12243. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152212243

APA Style

Pinto, A., Mazzetti, V., Carosi, P., & Lorenzi, C. (2025). Cortical Laminar Bone Membrane in Implant Dentistry: Biological Basis, Clinical Protocols, and Outcomes. Applied Sciences, 15(22), 12243. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152212243

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop