Objectives: To compare the performance and safety of Inion GTR(TM) Biodegradable Membrane System and Geistlich resorbable bilayer Bio-Gide((R)) membrane in human bone regeneration.
Material and methods: In a multicenter, split blind, comparative, randomized, prospective, pilot study 15 patients have been randomized at surgery whether to be treated either with Inion GTR(TM) Biodegradable Membrane System on one and Geistlich resorbable bilayer Bio-Gide((R)) membrane on the other side or vice versa after surgical removal of both fully impacted wisdom teeth. During the follow-up visits at week 1, 2 and 6 and at months 3 and 6 the general state, the wound, eventual adverse events and the medication of the patients were assessed. Computed Tomography (CT) scans were performed immediately and 3 months after the surgery, before biopsy collection. Semi-quantitative histological evaluation and histomorphometric analyses were performed according to the ISO 10993-6 standard. New bone formation and membrane integration were evaluated by CT scan measurements. Tissue healing was evaluated clinically and by photographs between the time on teeth extraction and during follow ups.
Results: Five patients were smokers, none drank alcohol. Mild adverse events like wound infection, haematoma or late swelling of the gums occurred in three patients. The trephine bur harvest of bone biopsies under local anaesthesia was uneventful. Whereas specimens from the sites treated with the Inion membrane yielded 17.0% (SD 24%), the Bio-Gide membrane sites yielded 13.5% (SD 15%) of bone tissue density. In sites treated with the Inion membrane, 9.5% of old bone density and 7.5% of newly formed bone could be found, whereas the Bio-Gide((R)) membrane sites showed 3.8% of old bone density and 9.8% of newly formed bone. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to the two variables. The osteoid rim was more extended with the Bio-Gide((R)) (6.6 mm) than with the Inion membrane (5.1 mm) but the difference between the two treatments did not reach statistical significance. Highly significant reductions in the area of the defect with both membranes were detected with significant increases in CT density at the immediate inferio-buccal adjacent bone and in the surgical defect area with both membranes. However, there was neither significant change in CT density in the immediate inferior-lingual adjacent bone of the two membranes, nor significant difference between the membranes on any of the four measurements (area of defect: P=0.1354; CT density immediate inferio-buccal adjacent bone: P=0.7615; CT density surgical defect area: P=0.1876; CT density immediate inferio-lingual adjacent bone: P=0.4212).
Conclusion: The overall clinical outcome was satisfying and the majority of the patients showed an uneventful healing phase. Both membranes presented similar capacities regarding their barrier function and were associated with analogous bone regeneration. No statistically valid evidence about the superiority of one particular membrane was obtained. For the patient the only difference is that one product is animal derived and the other synthetic.