Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is commonly used in combination with the installment of titanium implants. The application of a membrane to exclude non‐osteogenic tissues from interfering with bone regeneration is a key principle of GBR. Membrane materials possess a number of properties which are amenable to modification. A large number of membranes have been introduced for experimental and clinical verification. This prompts the need for an update on membrane properties and the biological outcomes, as well as a critical assessment of the biological mechanisms governing bone regeneration in defects covered by membranes. The relevant literature for this narrative review was assessed after a MEDLINE/PubMed database search. Experimental data suggest that different modifications of the physicochemical and mechanical properties of membranes may promote bone regeneration. Nevertheless, the precise role of membrane porosities for the barrier function of GBR membranes still awaits elucidation. Novel experimental findings also suggest an active role of the membrane compartment per se in promoting the regenerative processes in the underlying defect during GBR, instead of being purely a passive barrier. The optimization of membrane materials by systematically addressing both the barrier and the bioactive properties is an important strategy in this field of research.

Aim To review the knowledge on the mechanisms controlling membrane–host interactions in guided bone regeneration ( GBR ) and investigate the possible role of GBR membranes as bioactive compartments in addition to their established role as barriers. Materials and Methods A narrative review was utilized based on in vitro , in vivo and available clinical studies on the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying GBR and the possible bioactive role of membranes. Results Emerging data demonstrate that the membrane contributes bioactively to the regeneration of underlying defects. The cellular and molecular activities in the membrane are intimately linked to the promoted bone regeneration in the underlying defect. Along with the native bioactivity of GBR membranes, incorporating growth factors and cells in membranes or with graft materials may augment the regenerative processes in underlying defects. Conclusion In parallel with its barrier function, the membrane plays an active role in hosting and modulating the molecular activities of the membrane‐associated cells during GBR . The biological events in the membrane are linked to the bone regenerative and remodelling processes in the underlying defect. Furthermore, the bone‐promoting environments in the two compartments can likely be boosted by strategies targeting both material aspects of the membrane and host tissue responses.

The working hypothesis of guided bone regeneration (GBR) is that the membrane physically excludes non-osteogenic tissues from interfering with bone healing. However, the underlying mechanisms are insufficiently explained. This study aimed to investigate the molecular and structural pattern of bone healing in trabecular bone defects, with and without naturally derived resorbable membrane. Defects were created in rat femurs and treated with the membrane or left empty (sham). After 3d, 6d and 28d, the defect sites and membranes were harvested and analyzed with histology, histomorphometry, quantitative-polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), Western blot (WB) and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Histomorphometry demonstrated that the presence of the membrane promoted bone formation in early and late periods. This was in parallel with upregulation of cell recruitment and coupled bone remodeling genes in the defect. Cells recruited into the membrane expressed signals for bone regeneration (BMP-2, FGF-2, TGF-β1 and VEGF). Whereas the native membrane contained FGF-2 but not BMP-2, an accumulation of FGF-2 and BMP-2 proteins and immunoreactive cells were demonstrated by WB and IHC in the in vivo implanted membrane. The results provide cellular and molecular evidence suggesting a novel role for the membrane during GBR, by acting as a bioactive compartment rather than a passive barrier.

The study provides novel molecular, cellular and structural evidence on the promotion of early bone regeneration in response to synthetic strontium-containing hydroxyapatite (SrHA) substitute, in combination with a resorbable, guided bone regeneration (GBR) membrane. The prevailing view, based mainly upon in vitro data, is that the beneficial effects of Sr are exerted by the stimulation of bone-forming cells (osteoblasts) and the inhibition of bone-resorbing cells (osteoclasts). In contrast, the present study demonstrates that the local effect of Sr in vivo is predominantly via the inhibition of osteoclast number and activity and the reduction of osteoblast-osteoclast coupling. This experimental data will form the basis for clinical studies, using this material as an interesting bone substitute for guided bone regeneration.

The healing of bone defects may be hindered by systemic conditions such as osteoporosis. Calcium phosphates, with or without ion substitutions, may provide advantages for bone augmentation. However, the mechanism of bone formation with these materials is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the healing process in bone defects implanted with hydroxyapatite (HA) or strontium-doped calcium phosphate (SCP) granules, in non-ovariectomised (non-OVX) and ovariectomised (OVX) rats. After 0 (baseline), six and 28d, bone samples were harvested for gene expression analysis, histology and histomorphometry. Tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), at six days, was higher in the HA, in non-OVX and OVX, whereas interleukin-6 (IL-6), at six and 28d, was higher in SCP, but only in non-OVX. Both materials produced a similar expression of the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL). Higher expression of osteoclastic markers, calcitonin receptor (CR) and cathepsin K (CatK), were detected in the HA group, irrespective of non-OVX or OVX. The overall bone formation was comparable between HA and SCP, but with topological differences. The bone area was higher in the defect centre of the HA group, mainly in the OVX, and in the defect periphery of the SCP group, in both non-OVX and OVX. It is concluded that HA and SCP granules result in comparable bone formation in trabecular bone defects. As judged by gene expression and histological analyses, the two materials induced different inflammatory and bone remodelling responses. The modulatory effects are associated with differences in the spatial distribution of the newly formed bone.