Dataset Information

Hard tissue stability after guided bone regeneration: a comparison between digital titanium mesh and resorbable membrane

ABSTRACT: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) uses resorbable and non-resorbable membranes as biological barriers. This study compared the differences in hard tissue stability between GBR using evidence-based digital titanium mesh and resorbable collagen membranes during implant placement. A total of 40 patients (65 implant sites) were enrolled and divided into two groups: resorbable membrane and digital titanium mesh groups. The alveolar bone was analyzed at two- and three-dimensional levels using cone-beam computed tomography and by reconstructing and superimposing the hard tissues at four time points: preoperatively, postoperatively, before second-stage surgery, and 1 year after loading. The use of digital titanium mesh showed less alveolar bone resorption in vertical and horizontal directions two-dimensionally before the second-stage surgery and 1 year after loading. Regarding volumetric stability, the percentage of resorption after 6 months of healing with resorbable membrane coverage reached 37.5%. However, it was only 23.4% with titanium mesh. Although postoperative bone volume was greater at all labial sites with resorbable membrane than with digital titanium mesh, after substantial bone resorption within 1 year of loading, the labial bone thickness at the upper part of implants was thinner with resorbable membrane than with digital titanium mesh. Furthermore, digital titanium meshes made according to ideal bone arch contour reduced soft tissue irritation, and the exposure rate was only 10%. Therefore, although both resorbable membrane and digital titanium mesh in GBR were able to successfully reconstruct the bone defect, digital titanium meshes were better at maintaining the hard tissue volume in the osteogenic space.

SUBMITTER: Li S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8594427 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of a newly proposed minimally invasive split-thickness flap design without vertical-releasing incisions for vertical bone regeneration performed in either a simultaneous or staged approach and to analyze the prevalence of adverse events during postoperative healing.Materials and methodsFollowing preparation of a split-thickness flap and bilaminar elevation of the mucosa and underlying periosteum, the alveolar bone was exposed over the defects, vertical GBR was performed by means of a titanium-reinforced high-density polytetrafluoroethylene membrane combined with particulated autogenous bone (AP) and bovine-derived xenograft (BDX) in 1:1 ratio. At 9 months after reconstructive surgery, vertical and horizontal hard tissue gain was evaluated based on clinical and radiographic examination.ResultsTwenty-four vertical alveolar ridge defects in 19 patients were treated with vertical GBR. In case of 6 surgical sites, implant placement was performed at the time of the GBR (simultaneous group); in the remaining 18 surgical, sites implant placement was performed 9 months after the ridge augmentation (staged group). After uneventful healing in 23 cases, hard tissue fill was detected in each site. Direct clinical measurements confirmed vertical and horizontal hard tissue gain averaging 3.2 ± 1.9 mm and 6.5 ± 0.5 mm respectively, in the simultaneous group and 4.5 ± 2.2 mm and 8.7 ± 2.3 mm respectively, in the staged group. Additional radiographic evaluation based on CBCT data sets in the staged group revealed mean vertical and horizontal hard tissue fill of 4.2 ± 2.0 mm and 8.5 ± 2.4 mm. Radiographic volume gain was 1.1 ± 0.4 cm3.ConclusionVertical GBR consisting of a split-thickness flap and using titanium-reinforced non-resorbable membrane in conjunction with a 1:1 mixture of AP+BDX may lead to a predictable vertical and horizontal hard tissue reconstruction.Clinical relevanceThe used split-thickness flap design may represent a valuable approach to increase the success rate of vertical GBR, resulting in predicable hard tissue regeneration, and favorable wound healing with low rate of membrane exposure.

Project description:BackgroundRecognition of some of the limitations of titanium plates and screws used for the fixation of bones has led to the development of plates manufactured from bioresorbable materials. Whilst resorbable plates appear to offer clinical advantages over metal plates in orthognathic surgery, concerns remain about the stability of fixation and the length of time required for their degradation and the possibility of foreign body reactions. This review compares the use of titanium versus bioresorbable plates in orthognathic surgery and is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2007.ObjectivesTo compare the effects of bioresorbable fixation systems with titanium systems used during orthognathic surgery.Search methodsCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 January 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library (searched 20 January 2017); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 January 2017); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 January 2017). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov; searched 20 January 2017), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (searched 20 January 2017) for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials comparing bioresorbable versus titanium fixation systems used for orthognathic surgery in adults.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We resolved disagreement by discussion. Clinical heterogeneity between the included trials precluded pooling of data, and only a descriptive summary is presented.Main resultsThis review included two trials, involving 103 participants, one comparing titanium with resorbable plates and screws and the other titanium with resorbable screws. Both studies were at high risk of bias and provided very limited data for the primary outcomes of this review. All participants in one trial suffered mild to moderate postoperative discomfort with no statistically significant difference between the two plating groups at different follow-up times. Mean scores of patient satisfaction were 7.43 to 8.63 (range 0 to 10) with no statistically significant difference between the two groups throughout follow-up. Adverse effects reported in one study were two plate exposures in each group occurring between the third and ninth months. Plate exposures occurred mainly in the posterior maxillary region, except for one titanium plate exposure in the mandibular premolar region. Known causes of infection were associated with loosened screws and wound dehiscence with no statistically significant difference in the infection rate between titanium (3/196), and resorbable (3/165) plates.Authors' conclusionsWe do not have sufficient evidence to determine if titanium plates or resorbable plates are superior for fixation of bones after orthognathic surgery. This review provides insufficient evidence to show any difference in postoperative pain and discomfort, level of patient satisfaction, plate exposure or infection for plate and screw fixation using either titanium or resorbable materials.

Dataset Information

Hard tissue stability after guided bone regeneration: a comparison between digital titanium mesh and resorbable membrane

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets