###### Abstract  
The adjunctive use of GTR membranes helps us to achieve predictable periodontal regeneration. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the treatment efficacy of resorbable versus non-resorbable barrier membranes used in guided tissue regeneration in the treatment of intraboxy defects in chronic periodontitis patients. The following databases were searched: Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails (CENTRAL), SCOPUS, EMBASE. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in English languages over the past 25 years were included. The primary outcomes assessed were: change of probing pocket depth (PD), change in clinical attachment level (CAL) and gingival recession coverage (GRC), and intraboxy defect fill (IBDF). A total of eight RCTs were included for systematic review. The outcome of GR at a six-month interval revealed a significant difference in treatment effect with a mean difference of 0.42, 95% C [0.02, 0.81]; Z = 2.09, (\(p\) = 0.04) favouring the resorbable membrane group. The intraboxy defect depth fill at a 12-month interval revealed a significant difference in treatment effect with MD of 0.79, \(p\) = 0.00001; favoring the resorbable membrane group. The resorbable membrane showed a significant improvement in gingival recession coverage and intraboxy defect fill, owing to its advantage of avoiding the second surgical intervention. guided tissue regeneration; barrier membrane; bony defects; periodontal regeneration; systematic review; meta-analysis +
Footnote †: journal:  
platelet concentrates are also used, along with other regenerative materials, or alone in the treatment of intra-bony defects [13], function defects [14], and alveolar sockets [13]. However, a particular concern for many patients is that conventional regenerative surgery tends to increase gingival recession, further leading to cosmetic problems. In an attempt to overcome some limitations of the conventional procedures, [PERSON], in 1976, proposed that periodontal ligament cells are regarded as one of the most regenerative cells, which when allowed to proliferate, would aid in both cementogenesis, collagen synthesis, and osteogenesis, which further aids in the attachment of newly formed collagen fibers of periodontal ligament or lamina propria to teeth in normal conditions [15]. Thus, placing a non-resorbable or bio-degradable barrier membrane could exclude certain cell types such as rapidly proliferating epithelium and connective tissues, thus promoting the slower growing cells which are responsible for the regeneration of bone [16]. Most GTR cases have shown healing with the formation of new attachments [17]. In this procedure, a biocompatible barrier membrane (either resorbable or non-resorbable) is surgically implanted to cover and protect the bone defect. If non-resorbable, the barrier is surgically removed 4 to 6 weeks after implantation. Connective tissue and bone regeneration may then occur within the bone defect protected by the barrier. Current treatment modalities for treating advanced periodontal defects are not able to completely restore the soft and hard tissues surrounding the tooth. The guided tissue regeneration technique may be able to achieve regeneration, and henceforth allows the clinician to achieve regeneration and improve conventional surgical procedures. It was seen in a multicenter randomized controlled trial that the use of regenerative periodontal surgery with a GTR offers an additional benefit in terms of CAL gains, PPD reductions, and the predictability of outcomes with respect to papilla preservation flaps alone [18]. It was also suggested that these regenerative barriers along with bone grafts also result in more clinical benefits than OFD alone [19]. Previous systematic reviews conducted on the GTR membrane showed that, irrespective of the type of membrane used, regenerative therapy using a barrier membrane always produces better results in terms of improving clinical parameters when compared to OFD [20].