ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy of resorbable membrane and non-resorbable membrane in dental implant to guide bone regeneration.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, VIP, CNKI and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy of resorbable membrane and non-resorbable membrane in dental implant to guide bone regeneration from inception to February 20th, 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 22 RCTs involving 1 995 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: the resorbable membrane group was superior to non-resorbable membrane group in terms of repair success (RR=1.21, 95%CI 1.17 to 1.26, P<0.000 01), the bone thickness (MD=0.40, 95%CI 0.36 to 0.43, P<0.000 01), bone graft thickness(MD=0.40, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.46, P<0.000 01), patient satisfaction (RR=1.19, 95%CI 1.04 to 1.36, P=0.009), histological evaluation in bone contact (MD=4.82, 95%CI 0.14 to 9.50, P=0.04) and the total mineralized tissue (MD=3.73, 95%CI 0.32 to 7.14, P=0.03). They also had lower adverse reaction rate(RR=0.28, 95%CI 0.20 to 0.39, P<0.000 01) and changes of bone defect width from preoperative to 6 months postoperatively (MD=−0.62, 95%CI −0.93 to −0.31, P<0.000 01) with statistically significant differences. However, there was no significant difference in histological evaluation of non-mineralized tissue(MD=−2.48, 95%CI −5.81 to 0.85, P=0.14) between two groups.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that the resorbable membrane has better repairing effects, for which helps to promote the development of bone and bone graft, reduce the incidence of adverse reactions, which has good safety and effectiveness. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are required to verify above conclusion.