Non resorbable membrane vs collagen membrane for GBR?

So long as you can get a tension free closure of the flap, both resorbable and non-resorbable should work well. That said, non-resorbable and tack works best in my hands for bone regeneration if I really need predictability. Also second surgical surgery to remove the membrane should be a non-issue, b/c I'm assuming the GBR was done for the purpose of placing a dental implant; you can remove the membrane at implant placement or uncovery of the dental implant if GBR was done at same time as the implant. Obviously, if the membrane gets exposed, it becomes trickier with a non-resorbable membrane.

2017 a New Year ..... I have not used a membrane for 14 years and a few thousand grafts ..... they are a hinderance to the healing process . If can get tension free closure then nature has provided the best "membrane" the periosteum which unlike a layer or two of pig , induces the host SCDF to initiate healing ....... In all aspects of medicine it is an obvious fact that healing is encouraged by oxygen through blood supply ..... it does not matter how I look at it , impeding blood supply does not seem a smart move ... Anyway a few thoughts for 2017, maybe time to shift paradigm .... All the Best Regards Peter

A part of my PhD, 18 years ago was about GBR, last 18 years animal and clinical study were performed. My personal view as follows: space-making defect: 1. autogenous bone (do not need a membrane) 2. any type of bone substitute (non-resorbable membrane has a better BIC ) if a dehiscence observed, the dentist will know something is wrong. non-spacing defect: 1. autogenous bone (need a resorbable membrane) 2. any type of bone substitute( non-resorbable membrane which must be fixed by any means)