Hard tissue stability after guided bone regeneration: a comparison between digital titanium mesh and resorbable membrane.
10.1038/s41368-021-00143-3
- Author:
Songhang LI
1
;
Junyi ZHAO
1
;
Yu XIE
1
;
Taoran TIAN
1
;
Tianxu ZHANG
1
;
Xiaoxiao CAI
2
Author Information
1. State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & Department of Implant dentistry, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
2. State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & Department of Implant dentistry, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. xcai@scu.edu.cn.
- Publication Type:Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- MeSH:
Bone Regeneration;
Bone Resorption;
Humans;
Osteogenesis;
Surgical Mesh;
Titanium
- From:
International Journal of Oral Science
2021;13(1):37-37
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
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.
