We use cookies to give you the best experience possible with our website and to improve our communication with you. We consider your selection and will only use the data you have approved us to gather.

These cookies help making a website usable by enabling basic functions like page navigation and access to secure areas of the website. The website cannot function properly without these cookies.

These cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously. With this information we can constantly improve the experience we offer on our website.

These cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.

Minor bone augmentation

Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is a surgical procedure that utilizes grafting materials and barrier membranes to stimulate and direct the growth of new bone into defect sites.

Autogenous bone and/or a biomaterial, is placed into the bony defect to maintain space and stimulate formation of new bone. The filled defect is then covered with a barrier membrane to assist in wound-healing and prevent the ingrowth of soft tissue.

GBR approaches are used to restore bone in cases of fenestration or dehiscence defects around an implant, to compensate for major bone deficiencies, or to avoid bone resorption after tooth extraction in deficient alveoli. 

Why use a bone substitute instead of autogenous bone?

Autogenous bone is effective in stimulating new bone formation and is considered to be the preferred grafting material. The harvesting of patient bone can cause additional pain as well as prolong surgery and recovery time. In addition, autogenous bone is subject to a certain degree of resorption1.

Biomaterials are a valuable alternative to autogenous bone and possess several advantages. Geistlich bone substitute materials eliminate both the harvesting of patient bone and the additional discomfort associated with a second surgical site.  In addition, they offer a stable scaffold for bone formation and help to attain long-term volume preservation due to their low resorption rate2. For these reasons, Geistlich Bio-Oss® is the most frequently used bone substitute material in dental bone regeneration3,4.

Why use a barrier membrane?

Use of a membrane ensures undisturbed bone regeneration in the protected area and strongly enhances bone regeneration5,6.

More than 16 years of clinical experience have shown that a native collagen membrane, such as Geistlich Bio-Gide®, provides an ideal barrier to ensure optimal tissue integration7,8 and complication-free healing9. Surgical removal is not necessary since the membrane is naturally resorbed by the body.

Geistlich Bio-Oss® and Geistlich Bio-Gide® are the most frequently used products in regenerative procedures such as minor bone augmentation1,2.

They ensure:

  • Reliable bone formation10-15.
  • Excellent osseo-integration and long-term volume preservation12,16,17.
  • Long-term implant survival rate18.
  • Complication-free healing9.
  • Excellent esthetic outcome19.


Geistlich biomaterials are reliable, well-documented and versatile for a range of surgical procedures.


  1. Jensen T, et al.: Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23(8): 902-10.
  2. Orsini, G, et al.: Oral Dis 2007; 13(6): 586-93.
  3. iData Research Inc., US Dental Bone Graft Substitutes and other Biomaterials Market, 2011.
  4. iData Inc., European Dental Bone Graft Substitutes and other Biomaterials Market, 2012.
  5. Perelman-Karmon M, et al.: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013; 32(4): 459-65.
  6. Wallace SS, et al.: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2005; 25(6): 551-59.
  7. Schwarz F, et al.: Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17: 403-09.
  8. Schwarz F, et al.: Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19(4): 402-15.
  9. Becker J, et al.: Clin. Oral Implants Res 2009; 20(7): 742-93.
  10. Aghaloo TL, Moy PK.: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22: 49-70.
  11. Orsini G, et al.: J Biomed Mater Res. B: Appl Biomater 74B, 2005; 448-57.
  12. Piattelli M, et al.: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14: 835-40.
  13. Orsini G, et al.: Oral Diseases 2007; 13: 586-93.
  14. Traini T, et al.: J Periodontol 2007; 78: 955-61.
  15. Degidi M, et al.: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009; 11(3): 178-82.
  16. Sartori S, et al.: Clin Implants Res 2003; 14: 369-72.
  17. Maiorana C, et al.: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2005; 25: 19-25.
  18. Jung RE, et al.: Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24(10): 1065-73.
  19. Buser D, et al.: J Periodontol 2011; 82(3): 342-49.


CAUTION: Federal law restricts these devices to sale by or on the order of a dentist or physician.