From the very beginning, my experiences with the creos xenoprotect membrane have been very positive. It is simple to trim, even after soaking with autogenous blood. It’s easy to handle during surgery and offers excellent stability.
My choice of membrane depends on the indication. I find creos xenoprotect is particularly well-suited to bone augmentation techniques, especially in situations with reduced soft tissue. In many clinical situations, it offers the balance I need between space-maintaining stability and a slow resorption rate.
Most importantly, what I expect from a membrane when using guided bone regeneration (GBR) is predictable clinical success. In a meta-analytic study that we performed, comparing creos xenoprotect with other collagen membranes, we have observed a reduced rate in dehiscences with creos xenoprotect. In general, we have seen fewer complications in healing, especially versus other stiffer and cross-linked membranes. We have also demonstrated the efficacy of the membrane in a multi-center study.
In addition, the creos xenogain bone substitute is available in a useful variety of packaging options. Depending on the indication and clinical situation, a vial, a syringe, or a bowl is offered. The latter avoids the use of an additional sterile dappen dish for mixing the particulate with autogenous blood, which I prefer in most of my surgeries.
In my overall experience, the creos xenogain bone matrix is a reliable choice. It has been in clinical use for many years and examined in various research and clinical publications, which is a very important consideration for me when selecting a bone substitute to treat my patients.