Clinical and histological evaluation of three-dimensional printing individualized titanium mesh for alveolar bone defect repair.
10.7518/hxkq.2025.2024481
- Author:
Pengyu ZHAO
1
;
Gang CHEN
1
;
Yi CHENG
2
;
Chao WANG
3
;
Dan CHEN
3
;
Haitao HUANG
1
Author Information
1. Dept. of Stomatology,The First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116000, China.
2. Dept. of Stomatology, Xinxiang Central Hospital, Xinxiang 453000, China.
3. School of Biological and Medical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
guided bone regeneration;
histology;
histomorphometry;
three-dimensional printing individualized titanium mesh;
titanium mesh exposure
- MeSH:
Humans;
Printing, Three-Dimensional;
Titanium;
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography;
Bone Regeneration;
Osteogenesis;
Surgical Mesh;
Tissue Scaffolds;
Alveolar Process/surgery*;
Adult;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Female;
Wound Healing;
Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal/methods*;
Alveolar Bone Loss/surgery*
- From:
West China Journal of Stomatology
2025;43(4):592-602
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the osteogenic efficacy of three-dimensional printing individualized titanium mesh (3D-PITM) as a scaffold material in guided bone regeneration (GBR).
METHODS:1) Patients undergoing GBR for alveolar bone defects were enrolled as study subjects, and postoperative healing complications were recorded. 2) Postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans acquired at least 6 months post-surgery were used to calculate the percentage of actual bone formation volume. 3) Alveolar bone specimens were collected during the first-stage implant surgery for histomorphometric analysis. This analysis quantitatively measured the proportions of newly formed bone and newly formed unmineralized bone within the specimens. Specimens were categorized into three groups based on healing complications (good healing group, wound dehiscence group, 3D-PITM exposure group) to compare differences in the proportions of newly formed bone and newly formed unmineralized bone.
RESULTS:1) Twelve patients were included. Guided bone regeneration failed in one patient, and 3D-PITM exposure occurred in three patients (exposure rate: 25%). 2) The mean percentage of actual bone formation volume in the 11 successful guided bone regeneration cases was 95.23%±28.85%. 3) Histomorphometric analysis revealed that newly formed bone constituted 40.35% of the alveolar bone specimens, with newly formed unmineralized bone accounting for 13.84% of the newly formed bone. Intergroup comparisons showed no statistically significant differences (P>0.05) in the proportions of newly formed bone or newly formed unmineralized bone between the good healing group and the wound dehiscence group or the 3D-PITM exposure group.
CONCLUSIONS:3D-PITM enables effective bone augmentation. Radiographic assessment demonstrated favorable bone formation volume, while histological analysis confirmed substantial formation of newly formed mineralized bone within the surgical site.
