---

---

What the Two References Add to Your Notes

Reference 1: Bone Augmentation in Oral Implantology - Khoury, Antoun & Missika (Quintessence, 2007) - Chapter 11: Pre- and Peri-Implant Guided Bone Regeneration (pp. 299-320)

---

ADDITIONS TO YOUR EXISTING NOTES

---

---

• Bone has a unique capacity to restore its original structure after injury; any bone lesion creates osteoinduction.
• Osseous or neighboring cells release growth factors and bone-inducing factors including BMPs following injury.
• These factors act on osteoprecursor cells found in the periosteum, endosteal spaces, and medullary spaces, which then differentiate into osteoblasts.
• Bone regeneration capacity can fail due to four specific conditions: (1) lack of vascularization; (2) mechanical instability; (3) defects that are too large; (4) competition with inhibiting tissues (particularly mucosal connective tissue).
• A membrane isolates the osseous site and allows free expression of osteoinductive potential without interference from mucosal connective tissue.
• (Khoury, Antoun & Missika - Bone Augmentation in Oral Implantology, Ch. 11, p. 300)

---

• Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) comparison of e-PTFE (GoreTex) vs. resorbable membranes showed:
  • e-PTFE membranes: tight PTFE fiber bundle scaffold - acts as an effective protective barrier against migrating connective tissue cells and bacterial penetration.
  • Resorbable membranes: loose scaffold - weaker barrier function.
• The tight scaffold of e-PTFE explains its superiority in preventing contamination, especially in the event of premature exposure.
• GTAM (GoreTex Augmentation Material) membranes made of e-PTFE fibers offer: flexibility, effective cellular barrier, space maintenance, and - most importantly - biocompatibility with absence of cytotoxicity to osseous cells.
• (Khoury, Antoun & Missika - Ch. 11, pp. 300-301)

---

• DFDBA (demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft) induces ectopic new bone formation in athymic mice due to BMP content.
• Mechanism: BMPs in DFDBA recruit undifferentiated mesenchymal cells → chondroblast differentiation → cartilage formation → vascular invasion → bone formation (21 days after implantation).
• Quantity: Human bone contains 1 µg/kg BMP and osseous proteins combined with non-collagenous protein (NCP); 1 mg BMP/NCP leads to formation of visible newly formed bone deposits.
• Becker et al. study (canine model): Implants in extraction sockets with DFDBA vs. autogenous bone ± e-PTFE membrane. Result: best outcomes with autogenous bone + membrane. Sites with DFDBA histologically showed 45% bone matrix with non-viable DFDBA inclusions and only a minimal quantity of newly formed lamellar bone.
• Reasons DFDBA may fail to induce bone:
  1. Insufficient BMP/NCP content in the commercial product.
  2. Osteoclasts resorb DFDBA before osteoblast colonization occurs.
  3. Some DFDBA preparations may lack adequate osteoinductive protein levels.
• (Khoury, Antoun & Missika - Ch. 11, pp. 302-303)

---

1. If placing implant in an extraction socket, delay 4-6 weeks after extraction to allow gingival healing and ensure total membrane coverage.
2. Incision: Crestal incision in the middle of the edentulous crest is preferred over a displaced incision for better vascularization; release incisions made on each side and distal to the bone defect.
3. Full-thickness flap reflected apically to the defect extremity - surgical site must be clearly visible.
4. At a recent extraction site: soft tissue invading the socket removed with a curette.
5. Implant placed at least 3-4 mm apical to the extraction socket to ensure primary stability.
6. Small bur used to perforate the cortical bone around the defect margin to stimulate osteogenic cell proliferation by opening medullary spaces.
7. Decision on membrane alone vs. membrane + bone graft:
   • Bone graft helps maintain space and contributes to bone formation.
   • Preferred: non-resorbable titanium-reinforced membrane covering the entire defect.
8. Membrane sizing: cut to avoid sharp borders; should maintain sufficient space around defect without risk of collapse; bordered at least 2 mm from proximal tooth surfaces.
9. Membrane stabilized with screws or mini-nails placed distally to the implant; alternatively tucked under periosteum.
10. Flap must cover membrane without tension - periosteal release incisions and apical periosteal dissection prevent tension.
11. Blair-Donati sutures used; chlorhexidine rinses and antibiotics prescribed for 10 days; sutures removed at 8-10 days.

• Membrane alone or membrane + bone graft placed first.
• Membranes must remain totally covered for 9-12 months depending on defect size.
• Radiographic control recommended to evaluate bone reconstruction quality.
• Implant placement and membrane removal done simultaneously at second stage.

---

1. Volume of regenerated bone - insufficient volume leads to technical difficulties; membrane collapse risk increases with larger membranes.
2. Bone cells invading the membrane space without inhibition by mucosal connective tissue cells.
3. Type of bone defect - vertical crest augmentation is the most difficult and sometimes impossible to achieve.
4. Duration of membrane placement without exposure - a period of 8-12 months is necessary for adequate bone formation.
5. Density of newly formed tissue - significant correlation between membrane placement time and tissue density.

• Premature membrane exposure and site infection significantly compromise GBR success (Nowzari & Slots; Gotfredsen et al.).

---

• 6 months: Regenerated tissue slightly mature; osteoid tissue is slightly mineralized and poor in cells.
• 8 months: Tissue shows signs of maturation; osteoid tissue becomes denser and mineralized with a rich cellular population.
• 12 months: Tissue density approaches healthy bone.
• Correlation: longer membrane placement = denser, better-quality regenerated tissue.

---

• The major complication of GBR is membrane colonization by pathogens, which can occur as early as 3 minutes after intra-oral manipulation.
• Pathogens identified on prematurely exposed membranes: Porphyromonas gingivalis, Bacteroides forsythus (Tannerella forsythia), Peptostreptococcus micros, Fusobacterium, Prevotella intermedia, Campylobacter rectus, Staphylococcus aureus, enteric rods, and beta-hemolytic streptococcus.
  • P. gingivalis elaborates collagenase and other proteolytic enzymes.
  • Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans produces a fibroblast inhibitor and other tissue-damaging toxins.
• Unexposed membranes do not reveal any microorganisms.
• Prematurely exposed membranes contain 2.0×10⁶ to 2.8×10⁸ microorganisms.
• Source of pathogens: Patients with periodontal sockets ≥6 mm carry the highest pathogen loads; edentulous or periodontally treated patients have significantly fewer pathogens.
• Clinical implication: Control of periodontal pathogens in the entire oral cavity before reconstructive surgery is essential; salivary contamination intraoperatively must be minimized.
• Recommended antimicrobial protocol: antibiotics for 10 days; chlorhexidine rinses.

1. Inadequate surgical protocol (incision too close to membrane borders; tension on flap)
2. Anatomic defect factors (large vertical defects; defects directly at extraction sites)
3. Prosthesis irritation (pressure from provisional on surgical site)
4. Host factors (poor oral hygiene; active periodontal disease; smoking)

• Delay membrane placement 6-8 weeks after extraction to ensure adequate soft tissue coverage.
• Crestal incisions should extend 1-2 teeth beyond the edentulous area.
• Membrane borders positioned ≥2 mm from proximal tooth surfaces.
• Sharp membrane angles must be avoided (lead to mucosal perforations).
• Change to sterile gloves before membrane preparation to minimize blood/saliva contamination.

---

• Dahlin et al. (1988, Plast Reconstr Surg): Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration - foundational GBR study.
• Dahlin et al. (1989, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants): Generation of new bone around titanium implants in rabbits using GBR.
• Jovanovic et al. (1992): Bone regeneration around titanium dental implants in dehisced defect sites - clinical study.
• Jovanovic et al. (1995): Supracrestal bone formation around dental implants in experimental dog study.
• Gotfredsen et al. (1993): Evaluation of GBR around implants in fresh extraction sockets - experimental dog study; decreased predictability with membrane exposure.
• Mattout & Mattout (2000, J Periodontol 71:1904-9): Retrospective study of 376 GBR sites - conditions for success; confirmed significance of membrane exposure as predictor of failure.
• Nowzari & Slots: Identified elevated periodontal pathogen proportions on prematurely exposed membranes.
• Hammerle & Lang (2001, Clin Oral Implants Res): Single-stage surgery combining transmucosal implant placement with GBR and bioresorbable materials.

---

Reference 2: Bone and Soft Tissue Augmentation in Implantology - Khoury (Quintessence, newer edition)

• While many practitioners prefer GBR techniques as "less invasive" and to avoid second-site morbidity, autogenous bone blocks are far more successful than synthetic GBR materials for bone grafting - greater bone gain, fewer complications, and lower cost.
• Solid bone blocks tend to resorb over time as creeping substitution is incomplete due to lack of osteocytes controlling bone homeostasis.
• The Khoury plate technique (split cortical bone blocks) creates an envelope rapidly replaced by new medullary bone within 3-4 months, with osteocyte-rich lacunae enabling normal bone homeostasis and remodeling under implant load.
• This provides a useful counterpoint: GBR is a validated technique, but autogenous block grafts - especially Khoury plate technique - offer superior volumetric outcomes for large defects.

---

Summary: What to Add vs. What Already Exists

---

• Part A - GTR (Sections 1-9): Full original notes retained - definition, history, biologic rationale, indications, contraindications, prerequisites, membranes (with new SEM evidence from Khoury/Antoun added), clinical results for intrabony and furcation defects.
• Part B - GBR (Sections 1-17): Original notes fully retained plus new additions inserted at the correct logical positions:
  • Section 4 - New: four specific conditions under which bone regeneration fails (lack of vascularization, mechanical instability, oversized defects, tissue competition) - from Khoury/Antoun Ch. 11, p. 300
  • Section 8 - New: SEM evidence comparing e-PTFE vs. resorbable membrane scaffold density
  • Section 9 - New: Detailed DFDBA mechanism, BMP quantities, Becker et al. canine study, and specific reasons for DFDBA failure
  • Section 11 - Entirely new: Histological maturation timeline (6/8/12 months), tissue density index scale (1-5), clinical implications for membrane duration
  • Section 12 - New: Mattout/Khoury simultaneous implant protocol (11 detailed steps) and staged protocol (9-12 month coverage) added alongside Buser and Misch protocols
  • Section 13 - Entirely new: Microbiology of GBR failure - full pathogen list, quantification (10⁶-10⁸), source (periodontal pockets ≥6 mm), prevention
  • Section 14 - Entirely new: Four-category classification of causes of premature membrane exposure (Mattout 2000, 376 sites), with prevention protocol
  • Section 15 - New: Additional primary studies cited in Khoury/Antoun appended
  • Section 16 - Entirely new: GBR vs. autogenous bone block perspective from Khoury's newer book
• Part C - Flap Techniques (all 6 GTR flap techniques + furcation technique + GBR vertical technique): Unchanged from original.
• References: Original 8 references kept; References 9 and 10 (Khoury/Antoun 2007 and Khoury 2022) added, with key primary literature cited in Ch. 11 listed.

---

GUIDED TISSUE REGENERATION (GTR) AND GUIDED BONE REGENERATION (GBR)

Postgraduate University Theory Examination Notes

---

PART A: GUIDED TISSUE REGENERATION (GTR)

---

1. DEFINITION

• GTR is a surgical procedure that uses barrier membranes to prevent the proliferation of gingival epithelium and connective tissue into the periodontal wound, thereby selectively allowing periodontal ligament (PDL) cells and bone-forming cells to repopulate the root surface and regenerate a new attachment apparatus.
• GTR results in the formation of new cementum, new alveolar bone, and a functional periodontal ligament - i.e., true periodontal regeneration.
• (Carranza's Clinical Periodontology, 10th ed; Lang & Lindhe, Clinical Periodontology and Implant Dentistry, 6th ed)

---

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

• 1959: Cellulose acetate (Millipore) filter first used in experimental bone surgery for spinal fusions - earliest concept of cell-occlusive barriers.
• Early 1980s: Group led by Nyman, Lindhe, Karring, and Gottlow (Sweden) developed the concept of GTR based on animal experiments.
• Animal experiments: Millipore filters and Teflon membranes placed in animal models showed regeneration of cementum, alveolar bone, and functional PDL.
• 1982: Nyman et al. treated the first human tooth with GTR. The tooth was scheduled for extraction due to extensive periodontal destruction, allowing histologic documentation. An 11-mm deep periodontal defect was treated; histology confirmed new cementum with inserting collagen fibers over the previously diseased root surface.
• 1984-1986: Gottlow et al. published landmark papers reporting new attachment formation in the human periodontium by GTR (J Clin Periodontol 1986;13:604).
• 1988: The term "guided tissue regeneration" (GTR) was introduced by Gottlow et al.
• Late 1980s-1990s: Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE/Gore-Tex) membranes became the gold standard non-resorbable membrane.
• (Buser, 30 Years of GBR, 3rd ed; Lang & Lindhe, 6th ed; Carranza's 10th ed)

---

3. BIOLOGIC RATIONALE / SCIENTIFIC BASIS

• The periodontium is composed of four different tissues: gingival epithelium, gingival connective tissue, alveolar bone, and PDL.
• All four tissues can potentially repopulate a wound defect.
• Gingival epithelium migrates fastest: ~1,000 µm/day (1 mm/day)
• Fibrous connective tissue also migrates rapidly
• Bone-forming cells (osteoblasts): ~100 µm/day (woven bone) or 1 µm/day (lamellar bone)
• PDL cells: Moderate migration rate
• Without a barrier: gingival epithelium dominates the wound → long junctional epithelium (LJE) and fibrous connective tissue attachment = repair, NOT regeneration.
• (Nyman et al. 1980; Karring et al. 1980 - foundational animal experiments; Lang & Lindhe 6th ed)

• Barrier membrane physically excludes faster-migrating epithelial and connective tissue cells.
• Only PDL cells and osteoprogenitor cells gain access to the wound space.
• These cells have the potential to form new cementum, bone, and PDL = TRUE regeneration.

---

4. INDICATIONS FOR GTR

• Deep intrabony (infrabony) defects: 3-wall > 2-wall > 1-wall (best to worst prognosis)
• Class II furcation involvement (mandibular molars best; maxillary molars less predictable)
• Class III furcation involvement: limited evidence; generally poor prognosis
• Recession defects combined with bone loss
• Good oral hygiene, absence of active periodontal infection, non-smoking status required
• (Lang & Lindhe 6th ed; Carranza's 10th ed; Newman & Carranza 14th ed)

---

5. CONTRAINDICATIONS FOR GTR

• Active periodontal infection / uncontrolled disease
• Heavy smokers (significantly reduced regeneration outcomes)
• Immunocompromised patients
• Poor oral hygiene / non-compliant patient
• 1-wall infrabony defects (inadequate bony walls for support)
• Inadequate attached gingiva / thin biotype with insufficient flap coverage

---

6. PREREQUISITES FOR SUCCESSFUL GTR

• Primary wound closure: most critical factor - must achieve tension-free flap coverage
• Space maintenance: membrane must maintain space for cell ingrowth without collapse
• Blood clot stability: undisturbed blood clot required for organization
• Exclusion of non-osteogenic cells: membrane must prevent epithelial/connective tissue ingrowth
• Angiogenesis: adequate vascular supply to regenerating tissue
• (Dahlin et al. 1988; Buser 30 Years of GBR; Misch 4th ed)

---

7. MEMBRANES IN GTR/GBR

• e-PTFE (expanded polytetrafluoroethylene) / Gore-Tex: First and most extensively used; gold standard non-resorbable; requires second surgery for removal at 4-6 weeks (GTR) or 4-6 months (GBR)
  • e-PTFE structure: Two distinct zones - (1) occlusive collar zone (prevents epithelial migration); (2) open microstructure zone (allows connective tissue ingrowth for membrane stabilization)
  • Advantage: Excellent space maintenance; predictable; histologically well-documented
  • Disadvantage: Second surgery; increased infection risk if exposed
• Ti-reinforced e-PTFE: Internal titanium framework - prevents collapse; used for larger GBR defects; maintains tent-like space
• d-PTFE (dense PTFE): Pore size < 0.3 µm - does not permit cell or tissue ingrowth; can be safely exposed (does not become infected); removed without second surgery in most cases. Excellent space maintenance; used for vertical augmentation.

• Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) comparison of e-PTFE (GoreTex) vs. resorbable membranes directly demonstrated structural superiority of e-PTFE:
  • e-PTFE (400-2400x magnification): tight PTFE fiber bundle scaffold - acts as effective protective barrier against migrating connective tissue cells AND bacterial penetration, especially during premature exposure.
  • Resorbable membranes (48-540x magnification): loose scaffold - weaker barrier function against both cell migration and bacterial penetration.
• GTAM (GoreTex Augmentation Material) membranes offer: flexibility, effective cellular barrier, space maintenance, and - most importantly - biocompatibility with absence of cytotoxicity to osseous cells.
• (Khoury, Antoun & Missika - Bone Augmentation in Oral Implantology, Ch. 11, pp. 300-301)

• Advantage: No second surgery required for removal
• Disadvantage: May degrade before adequate healing; less predictable space maintenance

1. Synthetic polymer-based:
   • Polyglycolic acid (PGA) - resorbed by hydrolysis
   • Polylactic acid (PLA)
   • Poly-d,l-lactide-co-glycolide (PLGA) - "Resolut" membrane (no longer on market)
   • Polylactic acid + acetyl tributyl citrate - "Guidor" membrane (no longer on market)
   • Polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) - Johnson & Johnson
   • Resorption via Krebs cycle metabolites (pyruvate, lactic acid)
   • Cross-linking regulates resorption time
2. Collagen-based:
   • Derived from bovine/porcine collagen
   • Regular collagen membranes: resorb in 3-4 months - for small to medium defects
   • Extended/cross-linked collagen membranes: resorb in 4-6 months - for larger defects
   • Pericardium membranes (bovine or porcine): porous surface for cellular attachment
   • AlloDerm (Acellular Dermal Matrix - ADM): human allograft connective tissue matrix; all cells removed; no viral transmission or rejection risk; AlloDerm GBR version (0.5-0.9 mm thickness) used for GBR
3. Calcium sulfate:
   • Can be used as a pavable resorbable barrier
   • Bioresorbed through giant cell reaction
   • Combined with bone/bone substitutes
4. Collagen tape/plugs: Resorb in 10-14 days - not suitable for GTR/GBR (insufficient duration)
5. Autogenous periosteum:
   • Periosteum from palate (window flap technique)
   • Reported significant gains in CAL and osseous defect fill

• (Newman & Carranza 14th ed; Misch Implantology 4th ed; Lang & Lindhe 6th ed)

---

8. CLINICAL RESULTS OF GTR - INTRABONY DEFECTS

• CAL gain: GTR achieves >1 mm additional CAL gain compared to open flap debridement (OFD) - meta-analysis by Murphy & Gunsolley (2003), 26 controlled trials, 867 intrabony defects.
• Needleman et al. (2006) meta-analysis: 17 RCTs - mean CAL difference between GTR and OFD = 1.22 mm.
• Multicenter studies (Tonetti et al. 1998, 2004; Cortellini et al. 2001) confirmed GTR superiority over OFD.
• 3 mm mean bone fill reported radiographically in large multicenter study (203 consecutively treated defects).
• (Lang & Lindhe 6th ed; Newman & Carranza 14th ed)

---

9. CLINICAL RESULTS OF GTR - FURCATION DEFECTS

• Class II mandibular furcations: GTR achieves ~2 mm horizontal furcation fill (Pontoriero et al. 1988, 1989).
• Maxillary furcations: less predictable due to anatomy (root proximity, limited access).
• Class III furcations: GTR results generally unpredictable; not routinely recommended.
• Combination therapy (GTR + bone graft) shows better results than GTR alone for furcations.
• (Lang & Lindhe 6th ed)

---

---

PART B: GUIDED BONE REGENERATION (GBR)

---

1. DEFINITION

• GBR is a surgical procedure that uses barrier membranes - with or without bone grafts - to create a secluded space adjacent to a bone defect, thereby excluding non-osteogenic soft tissue cells and allowing bone-forming cells to repopulate the defect and regenerate bone.
• GBR is primarily used in implant dentistry to augment deficient bone ridges before or simultaneously with implant placement.
• (Buser, 30 Years of GBR, 3rd ed; Misch, 4th ed)

---

2. GTR vs. GBR - KEY DIFFERENCES

• Both use the same fundamental principle of barrier membranes for space maintenance and selective cell repopulation.

---

3. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

• 1959: Cell-occlusive membranes first used for spinal fusions - conceptual origin. Millipore filters used in orthopedic surgery.
• Early 1980s: GTR developed by Nyman, Lindhe, Karring, Gottlow (periodontal context).
• Late 1980s: GBR concept introduced; case reports showing membrane technique for peri-implant bone defects.
• 1988: Dahlin et al. published landmark study - "Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration" (Plast Reconstr Surg 1988;81:672-6) - foundational GBR study. [NEW]
• 1989: Dahlin et al. demonstrated generation of new bone around titanium implants in rabbits using GBR membranes (Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:19-25). [NEW]
• 1988-1990: Use of e-PTFE membranes for GBR started; initially for:
  • Peri-implant bone defects at immediate implant sites
  • Crestal dehiscence defects at implant sites
  • Staged lateral ridge augmentation (staged approach: membrane first, implant 6-9 months later)
• 1990s: Bone fillers (autografts, allografts) combined with e-PTFE to support membrane and reduce collapse risk.
• 1992: Jovanovic et al. published clinical study on bone regeneration around titanium implants in dehisced defect sites (Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:233-45). [NEW]
• 2000s: Collagen membranes introduced; composite grafts combining autograft chips + DBBM (deproteinized bovine bone mineral).
• 2010s: Titanium-zirconium narrow-diameter implants; refined timing of implant placement.
• Today: GBR has become the standard of care for regeneration of localized bone defects in implant patients. (Buser, 30 Years of GBR)

---

4. BIOLOGIC RATIONALE / CELLULAR MECHANISMS

• Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) signal: chemotaxis → mitosis → differentiation of osteoprogenitor cells
• Osteoblasts arise from mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in bone marrow
• MSCs also differentiate to adipocytes, chondrocytes, myoblasts, fibroblasts
• Shift toward osteoblast lineage is regulated by BMPs, OGP, PPARγ, and multiple transcription factors (Runx2, OSX, DLX5)

• Bone has a unique capacity to restore its original structure after injury; any bone lesion creates osteoinduction.
• Osseous or neighboring cells release growth factors and bone-inducing factors including BMPs following injury.
• These factors act on osteoprecursor cells found in the periosteum, endosteal spaces, and medullary spaces → differentiate into osteoblasts → bone formation.
• Bone regeneration capacity can FAIL in four specific conditions:
  1. Lack of vascularization
  2. Mechanical instability
  3. Defects that are too large
  4. Competition with inhibiting tissues (particularly mucosal connective tissue)
• A membrane isolates the osseous site and allows free expression of osteoinductive potential without interference from mucosal connective tissue - this is the fundamental rationale for placing a GBR membrane.
• (Khoury, Antoun & Missika - Bone Augmentation in Oral Implantology, Ch. 11, p. 300)

1. Phase 1 (Days 1-7): Blood clot formation; recruitment of osteoblast precursors and growth factors from recipient bed, vasculature, and graft material; host osteoprogenitor cells infiltrate graft within 7 days
2. Phase 2 (Weeks 1-4): Resorption/deposition - "creeping substitution" and osteoconduction; osteoblast precursors differentiate under osteoinductors; synthesis of new osteoid
3. Phase 3 (Weeks to months): Woven bone formed initially along new blood vessels (angiogenesis-driven)
4. Phase 4 (Months): Woven bone remodeled to lamellar bone; bone matures

---

5. INDICATIONS FOR GBR

• Peri-implant bone dehiscence defects (simultaneous implant placement)
• Peri-implant bone fenestration defects
• Alveolar ridge deficiencies (staged approach)
• Post-extraction socket preservation
• Lateral ridge augmentation (horizontal bone loss)
• Vertical ridge augmentation (most demanding; limited predictability)
• Treatment of peri-implantitis bone defects
• (Buser 30 Years of GBR; Misch 4th ed; Khoury, Antoun & Missika 2007)

---

6. CONTRAINDICATIONS FOR GBR

• Uncontrolled systemic disease (diabetes, osteoporosis, immunosuppression)
• Active smoking (significantly impairs healing and regeneration)
• Poor oral hygiene / untreated periodontal disease
• Active infection at implant site
• Inadequate soft tissue coverage for tension-free flap closure
• Irradiated tissue (hypovascular - impairs regeneration)

---

7. PREREQUISITES FOR SUCCESSFUL GBR (DAHLIN'S FOUR PRINCIPLES)

1. Cell occlusion: Membrane must exclude non-osteogenic cells from the defect
2. Space maintenance: Membrane must maintain a tent-like space for bone formation; must not collapse
3. Wound stability: Membrane must not move; blood clot must be stable and undisturbed
4. Primary closure: Wound must be closed primarily without tension; membrane must remain submerged

---

8. MEMBRANES IN GBR

• e-PTFE (Gore-Tex): gold standard; requires second surgery
• Ti-reinforced e-PTFE: titanium framework prevents collapse; preferred for larger defects and vertical augmentation
• d-PTFE: can be safely left exposed (pore size <0.3 µm blocks bacterial penetration)

• SEM at 400-2400x magnification confirms e-PTFE has tight fiber bundle scaffold → superior barrier vs. resorbable membranes (loose scaffold at 48-540x).
• This tight scaffold explains e-PTFE's dual role: barrier against connective tissue AND protection from bacterial contamination during premature exposure.
• (Khoury, Antoun & Missika, Ch. 11, pp. 300-301)

• Regular collagen: 3-4 months (small-medium defects)
• Extended cross-linked collagen: 4-6 months (larger defects)
• Pericardium (bovine/porcine): porous; allows cellular attachment
• AlloDerm GBR: human acellular dermal matrix; 45-73% increase in soft tissue thickness

---

9. BONE GRAFTS USED IN GBR

1. Autograft (Gold Standard):
   • Properties: Osteogenic + osteoinductive + osteoconductive
   • Intraoral sources: Ramus, symphysis, tuberosity, local bone chips
   • Extraoral: Iliac crest (for extreme atrophy)
   • Disadvantage: Donor site morbidity; limited volume
   • (Ajay Vikram Clinical Implantology; Misch 4th ed)
2. Allograft:
   • Osteoconductive + variable osteoinductive properties
   • FDBA (Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft): Osteoconductive scaffold; BMPs present but at low levels
   • DFDBA (Demineralized Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft): Demineralization exposes BMPs; slight osteoinductive property; mixed with saline ± tetracycline for GTR use
   • BMPs in DFDBA/FDBA too low for clinical induction (bovine bone yields only 2 µg BMP) - recombinant DNA technology needed for clinically meaningful BMP levels
   • (Newman & Carranza 14th ed; Ajay Vikram; Lang & Lindhe 6th ed)
   [NEW - DFDBA Detailed Mechanism - Khoury/Antoun]:
   • DFDBA induces ectopic new bone formation in athymic mice due to BMP content.
   • Mechanism of action: BMPs in DFDBA recruit undifferentiated mesenchymal cells → chondroblast differentiation → cartilage formation → vascular invasion → bone formation (21 days after implantation).
   • Human bone contains 1 µg/kg BMP combined with non-collagenous protein (NCP); 1 mg BMP/NCP leads to formation of visible newly formed bone deposits.
   • Becker et al. study (canine model): Implants in extraction sockets - DFDBA vs. autogenous bone ± e-PTFE membrane. Result: best outcomes with autogenous bone + membrane. Histology: DFDBA sites showed 45% bone matrix with non-viable DFDBA inclusions and only minimal newly formed lamellar bone.
   • Reasons DFDBA may fail to induce bone:
     • Insufficient BMP/NCP content in the commercial product
     • Osteoclasts resorb DFDBA before osteoblast colonization occurs
     • Some preparations may lack adequate osteoinductive protein levels
   • (Khoury, Antoun & Missika - Ch. 11, pp. 302-303; Urist 1965)
3. Xenograft:
   • Osteoconductive only
   • DBBM/Bio-Oss (Geistlich): Deproteinized bovine bone mineral; most studied; slow resorption; excellent space maintenance
   • Hydroxyapatite from bovine/coral/other sources
4. Alloplast (Synthetic):
   • Osteoconductive only
   • Hydroxyapatite (HA): Hardness; biocompatible; non-resorbable
   • Tricalcium phosphate (TCP): Resorbable; combines with HA = biphasic HA/TCP (OSTEON graft) for both osteoconduction and resorbability
   • Calcium sulfate: Can also serve as resorbable barrier
   • (Ajay Vikram Clinical Implantology)

• Osteogenesis: Only autograft (contains viable cells)
• Osteoinduction: Autograft + allograft (DFDBA)
• Osteoconduction: All graft types (scaffold for ingrowth)

---

10. FACTORS DETERMINING GBR SUCCESS

• Patient factors: Oral hygiene, non-smoking, absence of systemic disease
• Site factors: Adequate vascularization; recipient bed must be decorticated
• Membrane stability: Must not move; must maintain space without collapse
• Primary wound closure: Tension-free; no membrane exposure

1. Volume of regenerated bone: Insufficient volume leads to technical difficulties; membrane collapse risk increases with larger membranes covering larger areas of soft tissue (risk of soft tissue necrosis).
2. Bone cells must invade the membrane space without inhibition by mucosal connective tissue cells.
3. Type of bone defect: Vertical crest augmentation is the most demanding and sometimes impossible to achieve fully. Defect morphology determines predictability.
4. Duration of membrane placement without exposure: A period of 8-12 months is necessary for adequate bone formation and tissue maturation (not 4-6 weeks as in GTR).
5. Density of newly formed tissue: Significant correlation between membrane placement time and tissue density - longer coverage = denser, better-quality regenerated bone.

• Premature membrane exposure and site infection significantly compromise GBR success rate (Nowzari & Slots; Gotfredsen et al.).
• (Khoury, Antoun & Missika - Ch. 11, p. 312; Mattout & Mattout 2000, J Periodontol 71:1904-9 - 376 GBR sites retrospective study)

---

11. HISTOLOGICAL MATURATION TIMELINE OF GBR [NEW from Khoury/Antoun]

• At 6 months: Regenerated tissue slightly mature; osteoid tissue is slightly mineralized and poor in cells. Density index 2-3.
• At 8 months: Tissue shows signs of maturation; osteoid tissue becomes denser and mineralized with a rich cellular population. Density index rises to 3-4.
• At 12 months: Tissue density approaches healthy bone. Density index 4-5. Implant placement and membrane removal can be performed simultaneously at this stage.
• Clinical implication: The minimum membrane placement period for non-resorbable membranes in GBR is 8-12 months - significantly longer than GTR.

---

12. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE FOR GBR

A. Simultaneous GBR with Implant Placement - Mattout Protocol [NEW from Khoury/Antoun]

• Step 1 - Timing: If placing implant in extraction socket, delay 4-6 weeks after extraction to allow gingival healing and ensure total membrane coverage.
• Step 2 - Incision: Crestal incision in the middle of the edentulous crest (preferred over displaced incision for better vascularization); release incisions made on each side and distal to the bone defect.
• Step 3 - Flap: Full-thickness flap reflected apically to the defect extremity. Surgical site must be clearly visible.
• Step 4 - Site preparation: At recent extraction site: soft tissue invading the socket removed with curette. Implantation site prepared using traditional technique.
• Step 5 - Implant placement: Implant placed at least 3-4 mm apical to the extraction socket to ensure primary stability.
• Step 6 - Bone perforations: Small bur used to perforate the cortical bone around the defect margin to stimulate osteogenic cell proliferation by opening medullary spaces.
• Step 7 - Graft and membrane decision: Membrane alone vs. membrane + bone graft. Bone graft helps maintain space and contributes to bone formation. Preferred: non-resorbable titanium-reinforced membrane covering the entire defect.
• Step 8 - Membrane sizing and positioning: Cut to avoid sharp borders; maintain sufficient space without collapse risk; positioned ≥2 mm from proximal tooth surfaces for complete flap coverage.
• Step 9 - Membrane fixation: Stabilized with screws or mini-nails placed distally to the implant; alternatively tucked under periosteum.
• Step 10 - Wound closure: Flap must cover membrane without tension; periosteal release incisions and apical periosteal dissection prevent tension; Blair-Donati sutures used.
• Step 11 - Postoperative protocol: Chlorhexidine rinses and antibiotics for 10 days; sutures removed at 8-10 days; monthly follow-up until membrane removal; no pressure on surgical site from provisional prosthesis.

B. Staged GBR (Membrane First, Implant Second) [NEW from Khoury/Antoun]

• Surgical approach similar to simultaneous implantation but no implant placed.
• Membranes used alone or combined with bone grafts; must be perfectly supported by blood clot, bone graft, or screws.
• Membranes must remain totally covered for 9-12 months depending on defect size.
• Radiographic control recommended to evaluate bone reconstruction quality before second stage.
• Second surgery: Implant placement and membrane removal are carried out simultaneously.

C. Simultaneous GBR - Classic Buser Protocol

1. Implant placed in prosthetically correct position.
2. If buccal dehiscence present: cortical bone perforated with small round bur to open marrow cavity and stimulate bleeding (angiogenesis).
3. Locally harvested bone chips applied to support membrane and stimulate bone formation in defect.
4. e-PTFE membrane applied as bioinert physical barrier; stabilized around implant necks.
5. Periosteal releasing incision → tension-free primary wound closure.
6. Second surgery at 4 months to remove non-resorbable membrane.
7. Histology (Schenk et al. canine model): blood clot → woven bone (along new blood vessels from cortical perforations) → remodeled lamellar bone.

D. Staged Lateral Ridge Augmentation - Buser Protocol

• First surgery: Crest incision (palatal if possible) + vertical releases; decorticate ridge; autogenous bone chips + bone filler; Ti-reinforced e-PTFE membrane stabilized with screws; periosteal release → tension-free closure.
• Healing period: 6-9 months (membrane left in place; protects regenerating bone).
• Second surgery: Membrane removal; implant placement into regenerated bone; implant osseointegration 4-6 months; then prosthetic phase.

E. Misch's Nine-Step GBR Protocol

---

13. MICROORGANISMS AND GBR FAILURE [NEW from Khoury/Antoun]

• The major complication of GBR is membrane colonization by periodontal pathogens.
• Colonization can occur as early as 3 minutes after intra-oral manipulation.
• Prematurely exposed membranes contain 2.0×10⁶ to 2.8×10⁸ microorganisms.
• Unexposed membranes do not reveal any microorganisms.

• Porphyromonas gingivalis (elaborates collagenase and other proteolytic enzymes)
• Bacteroides forsythus (Tannerella forsythia)
• Peptostreptococcus micros
• Fusobacterium
• Prevotella intermedia
• Campylobacter rectus
• Staphylococcus aureus
• Enteric rods
• Beta-hemolytic streptococcus
• Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans (produces fibroblast inhibitor and tissue-damaging toxins)

• Patients with periodontal sockets ≥6 mm carry the highest pathogen loads.
• Edentulous patients and periodontally treated patients have significantly fewer residual bone defects around implants than patients with deep pockets.
• Each patient with premature membrane exposure had several deep periodontal sockets (≥6 mm) - confirming direct link.
• Clinical implication: Full periodontal disease control before GBR is essential; patients with untreated periodontitis are high-risk for GBR failure.

• Control periodontal pathogens throughout entire oral cavity before reconstructive surgery.
• Minimize salivary contamination of membrane intraoperatively.
• Change to sterile gloves before membrane preparation.
• Antibiotics for 10 days postoperatively; chlorhexidine rinses.

---

14. CAUSES OF PREMATURE MEMBRANE EXPOSURE AND GBR FAILURE [NEW from Khoury/Antoun]

• Immediate membrane placement on day of extraction (insufficient soft tissue for coverage)
• Incision lines too close to membrane borders
• Tension on flap at closure
• Sharp membrane angles → mucosal perforations
• Membrane borders too close to proximal tooth surfaces (<2 mm)

• Large vertical defects (membrane covers large area of soft tissue → risk of tissue necrosis and membrane exposure)
• Defects directly at fresh extraction sites (insufficient covering tissue)

• Pressure from provisional prosthesis on surgical site

• Poor oral hygiene / active periodontal disease
• Smoking
• Systemic factors reducing healing capacity

• Delay membrane placement ≥6-8 weeks after extraction.
• Crestal incisions should extend 1-2 teeth beyond the edentulous area.
• Membrane borders positioned ≥2 mm from proximal tooth surfaces.
• Avoid sharp membrane angles (trim carefully; no sharp borders).
• Flap must cover membrane completely without tension.
• Periosteal release incisions + apical periosteal dissection to prevent tension.
• Blair-Donati sutures; sutures removed at 8-10 days.
• No pressure on surgical site from provisional prosthesis.

---

15. CLINICAL RESULTS OF GBR

• GBR predictably regenerates dehiscence-type defects around implants: 85-100% bone fill with simultaneous approach (defects <5 mm vertical height).
• Staged GBR: 90-100% implant survival rates in regenerated bone; comparable to implants placed in native bone.
• Vertical GBR: less predictable; mean gains 3-7 mm reported in systematic reviews; complication rate higher.

• Dahlin et al. 1988 (Plast Reconstr Surg 81:672-6): Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration - foundational GBR study.
• Dahlin et al. 1989 (Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 4:19-25): New bone generation around titanium implants in rabbits.
• Jovanovic et al. 1992 (Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 7:233-45): Bone regeneration around titanium implants in dehisced defect sites - clinical study.
• Jovanovic et al. 1995 (Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 10:23-31): Supracrestal bone formation around dental implants - experimental dog study.
• Gotfredsen et al. 1993 (J Oral Maxillofac Surg 51:879-84): GBR around implants in fresh extraction sockets in dogs; decreased predictability with membrane exposure.
• Mattout & Mattout 2000 (J Periodontol 71:1904-9): Retrospective study of 376 GBR sites - conditions for success; significance of membrane exposure as predictor of failure.
• Hammerle & Lang 2001 (Clin Oral Implants Res 12:9-18): Single-stage surgery combining transmucosal implant placement with GBR and bioresorbable materials.
• Nowzari & Slots: Identified elevated periodontal pathogen proportions on prematurely exposed vs. unexposed membranes - defined microbial basis of GBR failure.

---

16. GBR vs. AUTOGENOUS BONE BLOCK - COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE [NEW from Khoury]

• While many practitioners prefer GBR techniques as "less invasive" (avoiding second-site morbidity, shorter surgery time, lower skill requirement), autogenous bone blocks are documented to produce far better volumetric outcomes than synthetic GBR materials for large defects.
• Advantages of autogenous blocks over GBR:
  • Greater bone graft volume achieved
  • Fewer complications
  • Lower cost (donor bone is free)
  • Safe in thin gingival biotypes due to rapid revascularization nourishing overlying soft tissue
• Solid bone blocks tend to resorb over time as creeping substitution is incomplete - due to lack of osteocytes controlling bone homeostasis.
• The Khoury plate technique (split cortical bone blocks) creates an envelope that is rapidly replaced by new medullary bone within 3-4 months, with osteocyte-rich lacunae enabling normal bone homeostasis and remodeling under implant load - preserving volume long-term.
• Clinical implication: GBR remains a valid technique for small-medium defects; for large 3D reconstructions, autogenous block grafts - especially Khoury plate technique - offer superior predictability and volume maintenance.

---

17. GROWTH FACTORS IN GBR

• PRP (Platelet-Rich Plasma): Contains PDGF, TGF-β, VEGF, IGF - accelerates soft tissue healing; mixed with graft to improve handling; limited hard tissue evidence.
• PRGF (Plasma Rich in Growth Factors - Anitua): Centrifuged at 460g for 8 min at 1800 rpm; avoids leukocytes; PRGF mixed with graft acts as biological carrier; improves handling.
• PRF membrane placed over barrier membrane; reduces postoperative pain/edema; enhances soft tissue healing.
• Enamel Matrix Derivative (EMD/Emdogain): Amelogenins from developing porcine teeth; stimulates acellular cementum formation; favors periodontal regeneration.
  • Average 3.83 mm bone fill (74% of defects - Froum et al.) with CAL gain 4.26 mm.

---

---

PART C: SPECIFIC SURGICAL TECHNIQUES FOR GTR AND GBR

---

SECTION A: FLAP TECHNIQUES USED IN GTR

TECHNIQUE 1: PAPILLA PRESERVATION FLAP (PPF) - Takei et al. 1985

• Conventional flap with interdental incisions splits the papilla - exposes bone and graft/membrane.
• PPF retains the entire interdental papilla intact, providing complete coverage of the interdental area after suturing.
• Reduces postoperative gingival recession; preserves esthetics especially in anterior regions.

1. Step 1: Crevicular (intrasulcular) incision around each tooth - no incisions through interdental papilla
2. Step 2: On the lingual/palatal aspect, a semilunar incision is made across each interdental area, dipping apically by at least 5 mm from the line angles of the teeth - this frees the papilla from the palatal side
3. Step 3: An Orban knife is introduced through the semilunar incision to sever half to two-thirds the base of the interdental papilla; the papilla is dissected from the lingual/palatal aspect
4. Step 4: The papilla is pushed through the embrasure (buccally) with a blunt instrument and elevated intact with the facial flap
5. Step 5: Full-thickness flaps reflected
6. Step 6: Suturing: papilla sutured back through the embrasure; provides primary closure over interdental regeneration zone

---

TECHNIQUE 2: MODIFIED PAPILLA PRESERVATION TECHNIQUE (MPPT) - Cortellini, Pini Prato & Tonetti 1995

• PPF (Takei) requires adequate embrasure space and can traumatize papilla during displacement through embrasure.
• MPPT designed for narrow spaces where the papilla cannot be displaced through the embrasure.
• MPPT creates access through the buccal aspect: papilla elevated as part of the buccal flap without displacement through the embrasure.

1. Step 1: Semi-lunar incision on the buccal aspect - curved coronally; does NOT pass through the papilla tip.
2. Step 2: Full-thickness elevation of a small triangular buccal flap; papilla elevated en bloc with buccal flap.
3. Step 3: Crevicular incisions around adjacent teeth; lingual/palatal aspect not incised.
4. Step 4: Full-thickness flap reflected; granulation tissue removed; root planed.
5. Step 5: Membrane/graft placed; flap repositioned to its original position (no coronal displacement).
6. Step 6: Suturing: buccal papilla sutured to palatal/lingual tissue; interdental space closed.

---

TECHNIQUE 3: SIMPLIFIED PAPILLA PRESERVATION FLAP (SPPF) - Cortellini et al. 1999

1. Step 1: Oblique incision on buccal aspect from the base of the papilla tip to the line angle of the adjacent tooth (not through the papilla tip).
2. Step 2: Crevicular incision on buccal and palatal aspects.
3. Step 3: Mucoperiosteal flap elevated; defect accessed; granulation tissue removed.
4. Step 4: Membrane and/or graft placed.
5. Step 5: Flap repositioned; papilla sutured to palatal/lingual tissue.

---

TECHNIQUE 4: MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL TECHNIQUE (MIST) - Cortellini & Tonetti 2007

• Uses either MPPT or SPPF for papilla management.
• Vertical releasing incisions eliminated when possible.
• Flap elevated only as far as needed for defect access.
• Requires operating microscope (8-16x magnification).
• Sutures: 6-0 or 8-0 monofilament (e.g., polypropylene/nylon).
• Biologic agents (EMD, BMP) are preferred over bulky barrier membranes to reduce flap extension needs.

• Less postoperative pain and swelling (reduced flap elevation preserves blood supply)
• Less recession risk (minimal tissue manipulation)
• Faster healing (less periosteal stripping)

---

TECHNIQUE 5: MODIFIED MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL TECHNIQUE (M-MIST) - Cortellini & Tonetti 2009

• Single buccal incision only; access through a tiny interdental incision - only a small buccal triangular flap is elevated.
• The papilla remains "hanging" - still attached to the tooth via supracrestal fibers.
• Through this buccal "window," the granulation tissue is:
  • Sharply dissected from the papillary supracrestal connective tissue and bony walls with a microblade
  • Removed with a mini-curette
• Root surface carefully debrided with hand and mechanical instruments.
• Supracrestal fibers of defect-associated papilla and all palatal tissues are left untouched.
• Biological agent/graft placed; flap sutured with passive suture technique (6-0 to 8-0).

• Most preservation of blood supply (minimal incision; most vessels supplying interdental tissue preserved)
• "Hanging" papilla provides self-support and space for regeneration
• Flap extremely stable since most tissue is not incised or elevated - enhances blood clot stability
• High magnification essential; microblades/mini-curettes mandatory
• Reduced technique sensitivity with EMDs (no barrier membrane needed in many cases)

---

TECHNIQUE 6: MODIFIED WIDMAN FLAP (MWF) - Ramfjord & Nissle 1974

1. Step 1: Internal bevel incision 0.5-1 mm from gingival margin to alveolar crest; scalloped; blade angled to leave papilla same thickness as remaining flap.
2. Step 2: Flap reflected with periosteal elevator.
3. Step 3: Crevicular incision from pocket base to bone (triangular wedge).
4. Step 4: Third (interdental) incision coronal to bone with curette/interproximal knife to remove gingival collar.
5. Step 5: Remove tissue tags, granulation tissue; scale and root plane.
6. Step 6: Adapt facial and lingual interproximal tissue together; suture with interrupted sutures (flap replaced in original position).

---

SECTION B: SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES FOR VERTICAL AUGMENTATION WITH GBR

• Uses titanium-reinforced d-PTFE membrane (with titanium supporting struts) + bone graft.
• "Urban mattress suture design" for wound closure.
• Critical that membrane has structural support to prevent collapse into regenerating space.
• Graft in vertical augmentation: autogenous bone (mandatory) + slow-resorbing bone filler (DBBM).
• Graft particles contact host bone only at the base of the defect; three sides separated from natural bone → blood vessel and cell ingrowth comes only from base → most demanding in terms of space maintenance and membrane stability.

---

SECTION C: SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES FOR FURCATION TREATMENT WITH GTR

1. Step 1: Intrasulcular incisions along buccal and lingual aspects.
2. Step 2: Mucoperiosteal flap elevated buccally and lingually over alveolar process.
3. Step 3: Vertical releasing incisions on buccal aspect if needed.
4. Step 4: Root surfaces scaled and planed with hand + power instruments + rotating flame-shaped diamond burs.
5. Step 5: Remaining granulation tissue carefully removed from furcation - expose alveolar bone surface.
6. Step 6: Membrane positioned to:
   • Cover entrance of furcation (buccal or lingual)
   • Extend over adjacent root surfaces (from distobuccal line angle of distal root → mesiobuccal line angle of mesial root)
   • Cover 4-5 mm of alveolar bone apical to bone crest
   • Extend ≥3 mm beyond defect margin over bone
7. Step 7: Membrane secured with sling sutures around crown of molar.
8. Step 8: Graft placed to completely fill furcation + slightly overfill entrance.
9. Step 9: Flap coronally displaced and sutured so border of barrier is ≥2 mm below flap margin.
10. Step 10: Periosteal incision for coronal advancement if needed.
11. Step 11: Interdental or sling sutures; removed at 7-15 days.
12. Step 12: Non-resorbable barrier: second surgery for removal at ~6 weeks; incision 1 tooth mesially and distally to barrier border.

• Sulcular incision, full-thickness envelope flap - maximum retention of gingival and papillary tissues.
• Root surface: DFDBA hydrated in sterile saline ± tetracycline (125 mg/0.25g); membrane trimmed and protected from contamination.
• Combined DFDBA + GTR membrane for furcations.

---

FLAP TECHNIQUE QUICK REFERENCE SUMMARY

---

REFERENCES

1. Buser D. 30 Years of Guided Bone Regeneration, 3rd Edition. Quintessence Publishing, 2022.
2. Newman MG, Carranza FA. Newman and Carranza's Clinical Periodontology and Implantology, 14th Edition. Elsevier.
3. Newman MG, Takei HH, Klokkevold PR, Carranza FA. Carranza's Clinical Periodontology, 10th Edition. Saunders Elsevier, 2006.
4. Lang NP, Lindhe J (eds). Clinical Periodontology and Implant Dentistry, 6th Edition. Wiley-Blackwell, 2015.
5. Misch CE. Misch's Contemporary Implant Dentistry, 4th Edition. Mosby Elsevier.
6. Ajay Vikram Singh. Clinical Implantology. Elsevier.
7. Sela JJ, Bab IA (eds). Principles of Bone Regeneration. Springer, 2012.
8. Cintra LTA (ed). Guided Tissue Regeneration: Procedures, Health Effects and Long-Term Outcomes. Nova Science Publishers, 2017.
9. [NEW] Khoury F, Antoun H, Missika P. Bone Augmentation in Oral Implantology. Quintessence Publishing, 2007. Chapter 11: Pre- and Peri-Implant Guided Bone Regeneration, pp. 299-320.
10. [NEW] Khoury F (ed). Bone and Soft Tissue Augmentation in Implantology. Quintessence Publishing, 2022.

• Dahlin C et al. Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988;81:672-6.
• Dahlin C et al. Generation of new bone around titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:19-25.
• Jovanovic SA et al. Bone regeneration around titanium implants in dehisced defect sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:233-45.
• Gotfredsen K et al. GBR around implants in fresh extraction sockets. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993;51:879-84.
• Mattout P, Mattout C. Conditions for success in guided bone regeneration: retrospective study on 376 sites. J Periodontol 2000;71:1904-9.
• Hammerle CHF, Lang NP. Single stage surgery combining transmucosal implant placement with GBR. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:9-18.
• Nowzari H, Slots J. Microbiologic and clinical study of polytetrafluoroethylene membranes for guided bone regeneration around implants. J Periodontol 1994.

---